PDA

View Full Version : Yams Hearts and Europe? (accounts published on 3 May)



Winston Ingram
01-05-2012, 08:51 PM
I thought they couldn't qualify for Europe as they needed to file their accts by the 31st of March to be eligible for a licence. These to my knowledge have yet to be filed.

Tonight the commentator on sky said HoMoFc still had a chance of qualifying if they beat us in the final.

Can anybody shed any light on this?:aok:

Jim44
01-05-2012, 08:51 PM
Judging by a lack of information to the contrary, and constant reference to the Jambos being a stones throw away from a Europa League place, can we assume that all the talk about their ineligibility because of unaudited accounts and financial irregularities etc. is inaccurate?

jgl07
01-05-2012, 09:07 PM
I thought they couldn't qualify for Europe as they needed to file their accts by the 31st of March to be eligible for a licence. These to my knowledge have yet to be filed.

Tonight the commentator on sky said HoMoFc still had a chance of qualifying if they beat us in the final.

Can anybody shed any light on this?:aok:

The slueth-like investigative journalists from the Scottish media have missed out on that one. That is probably for the same reason that they described 'Craig Whyte as a billionairre who was buying the club he loves'. A more dim-whitted and idle bunch of wasters I have yet to see.

Rangers may have submitted 'undercover' accounts to the SFA although if this is the case they would probably have submitted them to the authorities as well.

A 'special case' will probably be used to enable the 'not a going concern' to compete in Europe in the unlikely event that they either beat Hibs in the Cup Final or finish ahead of St Johnstone or Dundee United in the SPL.

jgl07
01-05-2012, 09:14 PM
Judging by a lack of information to the contrary, and constant reference to the Jambos being a stones throw away from a Europa League place, can we assume that all the talk about their ineligibility because of unaudited accounts and financial irregularities etc. is inaccurate?

See other thread.

Winston Ingram
01-05-2012, 09:17 PM
The slueth-like investigative journalists from the Scottish media have missed out on that one. That is probably for the same reason that they described 'Craig Whyte as a billionairre who was buying the club he loves'. A more dim-whitted and idle bunch of wasters I have yet to see.

Rangers may have submitted 'undercover' accounts to the SFA although if this is the case they would probably have submitted them to the authorities as well.

A 'special case' will probably be used to enable the 'not a going concern' to compete in Europe in the unlikely event that they either beat Hibs in the Cup Final or finish ahead of St Johnstone or Dundee United in the SPL.

So technically they have missed it but your opinion is the credible upstanding SFA are gonnae do SFA about it and let them in?

jgl07
01-05-2012, 09:48 PM
So technically they have missed it but your opinion is the credible upstanding SFA are gonnae do SFA about it and let them in?

Technically Hearts require special dispensation to even compete domestically next season if their 2010-2011 accounts were not submitted by the end of March.

Given the statements on Hearts' website about financial support being removed by UBIG and the fact that Hearts' accounts have only been signed off by the auditors for some years because of assurances of this support, things look decidedly dodgy.

They have no accounts filed beyond the 2009-2010 season.

Are the Daily Record on their case? I don't think so. It is the same for the rest of the Scottish Media.

Maybe Alex Thomson will investigate once Rangers have been interred?

greenginger
01-05-2012, 09:59 PM
Technically Hearts require special dispensation to even compete domestically next season if their 2010-2011 accounts were not submitted by the end of March.

Given the statements on Hearts' website about financial support being removed by UBIG and the fact that Hearts' accounts have only been signed off by the auditors for some years because of assurances of this support, things look decidedly dodgy.

They have no accounts filed beyond the 2009-2010 season.

Are the Daily Record on their case? I don't think so. It is the same for the rest of the Scottish Media.

Maybe Alex Thomson will investigate once Rangers have been interred?


Trouble with their Accounts is, that last years accounts although not filed at Companies House until 13/5/2011, are dated as being signed by the auditors on 31/3/2011.
Might be the same this year and the SFA already has copies and the Yams enjoy getting £6,000 penalties from Companies House. :confused:

jgl07
01-05-2012, 10:02 PM
Trouble with their Accounts is, that last years accounts although not filed at Companies House until 13/5/2011, are dated as being signed by the auditors on 31/3/2011.
Might be the same this year and the SFA already has copies and the Yams enjoy getting £6,000 penalties from Companies House. :confused:

Don't all 'big' companies do that?

Jim44
01-05-2012, 10:14 PM
So technically they have missed it but your opinion is the credible upstanding SFA are gonnae do SFA about it and let them in?

I know I'm prejudiced but you would think that, considering the flak and the venom spat at the SFA by Romanov, they would see them coming, go by the book and give a two fingered salute to their 'special case' status. :rules:

Jack
01-05-2012, 10:36 PM
Did they not change the dates of their financial year?

Would this make a difference?

CropleyWasGod
01-05-2012, 10:37 PM
Did they not change the dates of their financial year?

Would this make a difference?

No.

Sir David Gray
01-05-2012, 11:07 PM
We'll beat Hearts in the final and they'll finish 6th in the table.

Problem solved. :aok:

greenginger
01-05-2012, 11:16 PM
Did they not change the dates of their financial year?

Would this make a difference?

They changed the date of their year end from last day in July to last day in June presumably to give them an extra month to get their accounts done by the dead-line and they are still late.

Hope their defenders are as slow. :greengrin

Winston Ingram
02-05-2012, 07:33 AM
So the answer to the question is we don't know?

happiehibbie
02-05-2012, 07:46 AM
I have spoken to a good few people in the know and the silence is deafening I even asked David Southern !! he would not confirm they had

jgl07
03-05-2012, 01:14 AM
I have spoken to a good few people in the know and the silence is deafening I even asked David Southern !! he would not confirm they had

I assume we can infer that Hearts' accounts have not been submitted. Otherwise it would have been publicized.

Beware the end is nigh!

Part/Time Supporter
03-05-2012, 05:24 AM
Apparently there is a story about Hearts finances on BBC radio this morning.

https://twitter.com/#!/BBCGeoffWebster/status/197917353533636608

Edit: Appears their accounts for the 2010/11 season are being posted to shareholders. Announcing profit for last season and reduced debt from £36M to £24M, due to another debt for equity swap. Now trying to trade without support from Vlad.

Gatecrasher
03-05-2012, 06:04 AM
What's a debt equity swap? Is this a we owe money to ourselves kind of thing? I find it hard to believe they managed to shed £12m without a significant sale of a player

Ozyhibby
03-05-2012, 06:09 AM
Undoubtedly good news for Hearts. £24m is still a very high debt.

Part/Time Supporter
03-05-2012, 06:15 AM
What's a debt equity swap? Is this a we owe money to ourselves kind of thing? I find it hard to believe they managed to shed £12m without a significant sale of a player

Yes. Hearts borrowed that money from Vlad. They aren't going to pay it back, so instead he takes it in (worthless) shares instead.

The significant thing is that his support is now in the process of stopping. Over the last 7 years his funding has allowed them to spend at least twice as much on players than they would normally be able to do. Hearts now have to find a way to break even without his support, but still having to service £24M+ worth of debt.

There was a lot of scepticism when Romanov said in 2005 that he would fund Hearts by £10M a year for 5 years, but that is more or less what he has done. The problem is they haven't really progressed as a club in that period (same stadium, attendance is about the same, on-field results have been inconsistent at best) and now they have to adjust to a more normal state of affairs. Presumably he will stick his oar in now and again though.

Gatecrasher
03-05-2012, 06:20 AM
Yes. Hearts borrowed that money from Vlad. They aren't going to pay it back, so instead he takes it in (worthless) shares instead.

The significant thing is that his support is now in the process of stopping. Over the last 7 years his funding has allowed them to spend at least twice as much on players than they would normally be able to do. Hearts now have to find a way to break even without his support, but still having to service £24M+ worth of debt.
Thanks PTS that rings a bell now, it will be interesting to see what there operating profit/loss is

grunt
03-05-2012, 06:35 AM
They announced a "profit" last year, by virtue of the fact that Vlad gave them an £8m donation.
I expect the same process will have been used this year - so not a debt / equity swap, more likely it will be a forgiveness of debt.
But we shall see later today. As pointed out above, Vlad has actually been very generous to them in recent years.

happiehibbie
03-05-2012, 07:32 AM
Brian Mclauglin (scoops) tweeted to day hearts have announced they have reduce there debts according to the accounts so i take it they have been done although Late !!!! am sure rangers had to meet a 31st march deadline

greenginger
03-05-2012, 07:35 AM
No sign of any ( 2011) accounts on Companies House web site yet. :confused:

Part/Time Supporter
03-05-2012, 07:52 AM
No sign of any ( 2011) accounts on Companies House web site yet. :confused:

Accounts would need to be approved at an AGM before they can be posted to CH.

ScottB
03-05-2012, 08:40 AM
It's not him being generous, he has no choice but to do that sort of 'donation' every season (until they cut back big time). Hearts have a debt limit of about £40 million don't they? All of Vlad's donations and debt swaps have been to pull them back from that limit.

Thus far it would appear proper cuts are coming in the summer, an overdue dose of normality for them...

greenginger
03-05-2012, 08:44 AM
Accounts would need to be approved at an AGM before they can be posted to CH.


Not on planet Yam apparently. Last year their accounts were published about 3 weeks before their AGM. Vlad says jump and the Yams say " How high " .

son of haggart
03-05-2012, 08:44 AM
It's not him being generous, he has no choice but to do that sort of 'donation' every season (until they cut back big time). Hearts have a debt limit of about £40 million don't they? All of Vlad's donations and debt swaps have been to pull them back from that limit.

Thus far it would appear proper cuts are coming in the summer, an overdue dose of normality for them...

Net debt in the latest accounts is down from £36.1m to £24m. Profit of £511K

Barney McGrew
03-05-2012, 08:50 AM
Net debt in the latest accounts is down from £36.1m to £24m. Profit of £511K

http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20120503/hearts-lifted-by-financial-results_2241384_2757696

I'm struggling to see how there can be a profit from those figures.

£6.9m turnover for the period, with staff costs still over £8m, operating costs at £3.6m and Vlad's cut (sorry, finance charges :wink:) at £1.44m.

The only way there can be a profit surely is counting whatever DFE swap they've done?

Hibs07p
03-05-2012, 08:51 AM
Net debt in the latest accounts is down from £36.1m to £24m. Profit of £511K

Only £24M, that's allright then? I'm glad they've not got any serious debt to worry about in the coming years. :wink:

ScottB
03-05-2012, 08:52 AM
Net debt in the latest accounts is down from £36.1m to £24m. Profit of £511K

Without Vlad's 'donations' of the last two seasons Hearts debt would be safely through the £40million barrier. Without it you'd be making big losses as normal.

DaveF
03-05-2012, 09:03 AM
Net debt in the latest accounts is down from £36.1m to £24m. Profit of £511K

Sheesh, and I had you down as one of the more sensible yams. Look, I know hee haw about finances, but do you serioulsy believe you made a trading profit of half a million quid?

Really?

grunt
03-05-2012, 09:09 AM
Hearts turnover for the 11 months to 30 June £6.9m
Hibs turnover for the year to 31 July 2011 £7m.

I'm sure they will bleat on about the fact that their accounts are for an 11 month period, but there is never any income during July anyway.
Who's the wee team now?

Barney McGrew
03-05-2012, 09:13 AM
Hearts turnover for the 11 months to 30 June £6.9m
Hibs turnover for the year to 31 July 2011 £7m.

I'm sure they will bleat on about the fact that their accounts are for an 11 month period, but there is never any income during July anyway.
Who's the wee team now?

They'll have had a bit of income, there will be season ticket sales and I think they had a home game or two in there as well.

But given that their attendances last season were on average 2400 per match higher than ours, it shows that their policy of giving season tickets away for next to nothing isn't bringing them in extra revenue.

grunt
03-05-2012, 09:15 AM
And on the same topic, if anyone can decode the explanation in the press statement about why turnover has dropped...?

"The reduction (in turnover) is due to reduction of costs as the result of a successful partnership agreement entered into with SRM, the club's new retail partner, which significantly improved margin opportunities and cash flow advantages". Sounds like classic Pravda reporting to me.

Beefster
03-05-2012, 09:19 AM
To put into perspective, Rangers are in administration with worst-case-scenario debts of somewhere around £120-130 million, which is just over double their annual turnover.

Hearts debt is 3.5 times their annual turnover.

JeMeSouviens
03-05-2012, 09:19 AM
Hearts turnover for the 11 months to 30 June £6.9m
Hibs turnover for the year to 31 July 2011 £7m.

I'm sure they will bleat on about the fact that their accounts are for an 11 month period, but there is never any income during July anyway.
Who's the wee team now?

Considering they'll still be servicing a debt of £24M and have training ground rent to pay, if they do actually live within their means we might actually have a player budget advantage next season. :shocked:

CropleyWasGod
03-05-2012, 09:24 AM
I haven't seen the accounts yet, so can't comment on the figures. However, does anyone know what the Audit Report says?

son of haggart
03-05-2012, 09:25 AM
Sheesh, and I had you down as one of the more sensible yams. Look, I know hee haw about finances, but do you serioulsy believe you made a trading profit of half a million quid?

Really?

Just reporting what Hearts are reporting as their published accounts - not commenting on it. I leave that to the experts on here, or possibly to the auditors :wink:

DaveF
03-05-2012, 09:27 AM
Just reporting what Hearts are reporting as their published accounts - not commenting on it. I leave that to the experts on here, or possibly to the auditors :wink:

Yes you are, but you forgot to report on the (yet more) debt forgiveness without which you would be in far deeper s h i t than you currently are.

Or did you over look that bit :wink:

down the slope
03-05-2012, 09:28 AM
And they think they made a profit !!!


Heart of Midlothian plc continued to make significant progress in its ultimate aim to achieve self-sustainability. Financial results are reported for 11 months for the period ended 30 June 2011 as opposed to the previous 12 month figures for year ended 31 July, 2010. The change of reporting period brings the club in line with standard UEFA member club financial reporting dates and therefore better reflects the business.

The most notable improvement in the company's financial position is in relation to net debt which reduced by 33% to £24m (2010: £36.1m) as the result of the implementation of a debt restructuring plan.

The company reported a profit of £511,000 - the second consecutive year of profits - with financial improvement, for the reporting period, achieved across three key areas of the business - operating costs reduced by 19% to £3.63m (2010: £4.48m); employment costs dropped by 12% to £8.03m (2010: £9.11m) and finance charges were cut by 11% to £1.44m (2010: £1.62m).

This improvement contributed to a reduction in operating losses, although a one-off write down of stadium redevelopment costs of £1.38m restricted the improvement.

We continue to assess the full implications of redeveloping Tynecastle, while making strenuous efforts to determine the best way of providing Heart of Midlothian FC with a first class European stadium, either at our current location or elsewhere in the west of Edinburgh.

A continued focus on financial efficiencies - including further managed reduction in employment costs and finance charges - will ensure the club is well positioned to achieve future financial improvement.

Turnover for the period was £6.9m (2010: £7.9m). The reduction is due to reduction of costs as the result of a successful partnership agreement entered into with SRM, the club's new retail partner, which significantly improved margin opportunities and cash flow advantages.

Turnover was however adversely affected by the absence of both European football and significant player sales. Both of these areas of business will show considerable improvement in the next financial reporting period due to the club's participation in the 2010/11 Europa League qualification rounds and the sale of at least three first team players.

The company continues to progress towards UEFA Financial Fair Play readiness and the Directors expect that while the current economic and footballing environment is extremely challenging, the club will be able to participate in future European competitions if it qualifies through final domestic league standing.

The company remains very clear in its aim of developing the best young players in the country to provide the foundation for such future on and off field prosperity. The evidence of our continuing progress in this area can be shown in the current season statistics in relation to 'Home Grown' players.

Hearts has played more home grown players than every other SPL team except one and has the fourth highest percentage, over 30%, of total game time played by Home Grown players. Given that the future success of the team will rely as much on the development of such home developed players as it will on player investment, Hearts has excellent on field prospects.

Off field, we are also pleased to report that the company remains focused on developing a stadium that matches the club's ambition of remaining one of Scotland's top teams competing regularly in European competition. Detailed consultation has been undertaken amongst all key stakeholders and a more detailed Business Analysis is now underway based on the direction provided by the Stadium Options study carried out with the support of City of Edinburgh Council.

It is appropriate to thank every employee of the company for their continued dedication to improving and developing the business. We would also like to acknowledge the excellent and continued support of sponsors, partners, politicians, suppliers and other interested parties in contributing to our progress. These partnerships are likely to see us continue to develop in forthcoming seasons.
We do believe that we are well positioned to continue improving our financial performance for the year ended 30 June 2012 based on increased revenues through European competition and positive transfer dealings as well as our on-going focus of reducing operating and employment costs.

CropleyWasGod
03-05-2012, 09:32 AM
And they think they made a profit !!!


Heart of Midlothian plc continued to make significant progress in its ultimate aim to achieve self-sustainability. Financial results are reported for 11 months for the period ended 30 June 2011 as opposed to the previous 12 month figures for year ended 31 July, 2010. The change of reporting period brings the club in line with standard UEFA member club financial reporting dates and therefore better reflects the business.

The most notable improvement in the company's financial position is in relation to net debt which reduced by 33% to £24m (2010: £36.1m) as the result of the implementation of a debt restructuring plan.

The company reported a profit of £511,000 - the second consecutive year of profits - with financial improvement, for the reporting period, achieved across three key areas of the business - operating costs reduced by 19% to £3.63m (2010: £4.48m); employment costs dropped by 12% to £8.03m (2010: £9.11m) and finance charges were cut by 11% to £1.44m (2010: £1.62m).

This improvement contributed to a reduction in operating losses, although a one-off write down of stadium redevelopment costs of £1.38m restricted the improvement.

We continue to assess the full implications of redeveloping Tynecastle, while making strenuous efforts to determine the best way of providing Heart of Midlothian FC with a first class European stadium, either at our current location or elsewhere in the west of Edinburgh.

A continued focus on financial efficiencies - including further managed reduction in employment costs and finance charges - will ensure the club is well positioned to achieve future financial improvement.

Turnover for the period was £6.9m (2010: £7.9m). The reduction is due to reduction of costs as the result of a successful partnership agreement entered into with SRM, the club's new retail partner, which significantly improved margin opportunities and cash flow advantages.




That's a trading loss of £6.2m.

son of haggart
03-05-2012, 09:33 AM
Yes you are, but you forgot to report on the (yet more) debt forgiveness without which you would be in far deeper s h i t than you currently are.

Or did you over look that bit :wink:

Nope

to be frank I don't fully understand the interrelationship between the debt forgiveness and the profit reported. Without the benefit of seeing the full accounts and the auditor's report I don't see how anyone could.

Profits are often reported when underlying trends are much worse - Finance officers clearly present the accontts in the best light possible.

If there is a second tranche of debt forgiveness that would be good news - my guess is that the £12 million reduction is the effect of last year's announcement.

I also didn't report all the guff about the fact there qwere no players sales or europa league participation (or cup final) in last years's accounts but that teh nesxt set will include three player sales.

I just reported the bits (profit and debt) that were nbeing commented on here, for clarification

grunt
03-05-2012, 09:52 AM
...that teh nesxt set will include three player sales.
One of which you haven't been, and won't get, paid for.

DC_Hibs
03-05-2012, 10:32 AM
Horrific figures and once again another debt for equity swap/debt forgiveness papers over the cracks of a basket case organisation.
I reckon they'd be over £50m debt without those in recent years.

I've no idea why he continues taking a hit on this joke outfit as in the long run there is little prospect of any return either from success on the park or tempting some complete halfwit to buy it.

6th place in a poor league despite a (still) ridiculously high wages to turnover ratio. Let's see if they can beat their 9000 crowd from this week when the remainder of their better players leave and they realise what they will be watching next season.

Pull the plug Vlad.

greenginger
03-05-2012, 10:40 AM
Nope

to be frank I don't fully understand the interrelationship between the debt forgiveness and the profit reported. Without the benefit of seeing the full accounts and the auditor's report I don't see how anyone could.

Profits are often reported when underlying trends are much worse - Finance officers clearly present the accontts in the best light possible.

If there is a second tranche of debt forgiveness that would be good news - my guess is that the £12 million reduction is the effect of last year's announcement.

I also didn't report all the guff about the fact there qwere no players sales or europa league participation (or cup final) in last years's accounts but that teh nesxt set will include three player sales.

I just reported the bits (profit and debt) that were nbeing commented on here, for clarification

Trouble is you are going to have to whistle Dixie (literally) for for half of your transfer income as your big cousins have shafted you. :greengrin

truehibernian
03-05-2012, 10:47 AM
You can also factor in the compensation package/severance for JJ and Brown, which will negate the profit made on Jonsson. In Hibs case for example I believe £200K was paid to CC. Hearts coaching team will certainly have commanded the same no doubt.

Peevemor
03-05-2012, 11:01 AM
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20120503/hearts-lifted-by-financial-results_2241384_2757696

I'm struggling to see how there can be a profit from those figures.

£6.9m turnover for the period, with staff costs still over £8m, operating costs at £3.6m and Vlad's cut (sorry, finance charges :wink:) at £1.44m.

The only way there can be a profit surely is counting whatever DFE swap they've done?


Which is what they did in "last year's" accounts. :agree:

son of haggart
03-05-2012, 11:06 AM
Which is what they did in "last year's" accounts. :agree:

According to someone who has received the accounts £10m debt for equity £8m debt forgiveness in this set of accounts

Peevemor
03-05-2012, 11:22 AM
According to someone who has received the accounts £10m debt for equity £8m debt forgiveness in this set of accounts

Without either the debt would have stood at £42m (+ the other debt for equity thingies that have been carried out in the past).

Assuming it's the £8m debt forgiveness that enabled the £500k 'profit' to be posted, that means Hearts had an operating loss of only £7.5m last year - more than their turnover.

Things are really looking great down at the PBS. :aok:

Andy74
03-05-2012, 12:03 PM
I presume they have to fool UEFA for future years in that they have made profit for two years. Total nonsense that most Hearts fans will probably buy again!

allmodcons
03-05-2012, 12:14 PM
Can someone in the know please explain to me how they are able to annouce a profit in excess of £500k based on these figures.
http://www.sportinglife.com/football/transfer_centre/nw_story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/12/05/03/SOCCER_Hearts_Finances.html
Turnover of £6.9m versus wages & operating costs of £11.66M!

jgl07
03-05-2012, 12:17 PM
I presume they have to fool UEFA for future years in that they have made profit for two years. Total nonsense that most Hearts fans will probably buy again!

Hearts will come nowhere near FFP requirements on the basis of those accounts.

They have a trading loss around the same size as, if not bigger than, their turnover.

grunt
03-05-2012, 12:19 PM
Can someone in the know please explain ...See posts above. Debt forgiveness. "See that £8m we owed Vlad? He's let us off paying it." Not that he was ever going to get it anyway.

CropleyWasGod
03-05-2012, 12:19 PM
Hearts will come nowhere near FFP requirements on the basis of those accounts.

They have a trading loss around the same size as, if not bigger than, their turnover.

They also have to have an Audit Report which doesn't have a Going Concern qualification.

Part/Time Supporter
03-05-2012, 12:20 PM
Can someone in the know please explain to me how they are able to annouce a profit in excess of £500k based on these figures.
http://www.sportinglife.com/football/transfer_centre/nw_story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/12/05/03/SOCCER_Hearts_Finances.html
Turnover of £6.9m versus wages & operating costs of £11.66M!

They counted Romanov writing off £8M of loans as (exceptional) income.

Taking the guy at his word, that isn't going to happen in the future. Therefore they will have to massively cut costs. That's already started with a few recent announcements (Black, Morowiec, Obua).

Their turnover last year was £7M, albeit that was in a year without Europe or a decent cup run. Their finance costs and other overheads are about £5M. They would need to cut the employment costs from £8M to £4M to get anywhere near break-even. They're making a big song and dance in their statement of how they've done a great job by cutting costs by between 10% and 20%. They'll need to cut them by nearly 50% of the reduced amount to achieve break-even.

Spike Mandela
03-05-2012, 12:23 PM
One of which you haven't been, and won't get, paid for.


Nope

to be frank I don't fully understand the interrelationship between the debt forgiveness and the profit reported. Without the benefit of seeing the full accounts and the auditor's report I don't see how anyone could.

Profits are often reported when underlying trends are much worse - Finance officers clearly present the accontts in the best light possible.

If there is a second tranche of debt forgiveness that would be good news - my guess is that the £12 million reduction is the effect of last year's announcement.

I also didn't report all the guff about the fact there qwere no players sales or europa league participation (or cup final) in last years's accounts but that teh nesxt set will include three player sales.

I just reported the bits (profit and debt) that were nbeing commented on here, for clarification


In Hearts world they make a profit and massively reduce the debt yet in the real world they cannae pay their players on time.

Does anyone seriously believe this BS? Like the Rangers fiasco financial heads at these clubs treat the fans as if they are monkeys( to quote Vlad:wink:)

KeithTheHibby
03-05-2012, 12:27 PM
I think some Hibbies need to take the blinkers off and see this as intent to clear the debt by whatever means.

Those stating that the debt would have been blah blah blah without debt for equity / debt forgiveness etc. need to realise that this has happened and can only be a good thing for the club.
If Hibs had been in this position and Sir Tom was doing the same thing we would be banging on about how great a guy he was, surely the yams are entitled to think the same?

How did we reduce our debt? We sold anyone who was worth a bit of cash. How have the yams done it? Debt for worthless equity. I ask you all, what would prefer?!

From these accounts they are clearly addressing the problem and yes they may suffer on the park as a result but in this league it doesn't take spending cash to make you successful, i.e. Motherwell and St Johnstone. 2 small clubs in comparison to Hearts yet are performing better this season on shoestring income.
Get the right manager and infrastructure on the park and you can do well in this country.

allmodcons
03-05-2012, 12:28 PM
They counted Romanov writing off £8M of loans as (exceptional) income.

Taking the guy at his word, that isn't going to happen in the future. Therefore they will have to massively cut costs. That's already started with a few recent announcements (Black, Morowiec, Obua).

Their turnover last year was £7M, albeit that was in a year without Europe or a decent cup run. Their finance costs and other overheads are about £5M. They would need to cut the employment costs from £8M to £4M to get anywhere near break-even. They're making a big song and dance in their statement of how they've done a great job by cutting costs by between 10% and 20%. They'll need to cut them by nearly 50% of the reduced amount to achieve break-even.

Is that a legitimate accounting practice?

CropleyWasGod
03-05-2012, 12:32 PM
Is that a legitimate accounting practice?

It is legitimate. However, it is also misleading to go on and say that a profit has been achieved as a result.

Spike Mandela
03-05-2012, 12:32 PM
I think some Hibbies need to take the blinkers off and see this as intent to clear the debt by whatever means.

Those stating that the debt would have been blah blah blah without debt for equity / debt forgiveness etc. need to realise that this has happened and can only be a good thing for the club.
If Hibs had been in this position and Sir Tom was doing the same thing we would be banging on about how great a guy he was, surely the yams are entitled to think the same?

How did we reduce our debt? We sold anyone who was worth a bit of cash. How have the yams done it? Debt for worthless equity. I ask you all, what would prefer?!

From these accounts they are clearly addressing the problem and yes they may suffer on the park as a result but in this league it doesn't take spending cash to make you successful, i.e. Motherwell and St Johnstone. 2 small clubs in comparison to Hearts yet are performing better this season on shoestring income.
Get the right manager and infrastructure on the park and you can do well in this country.

Yes you are right but Vlad has publically declared he is about to stop funding Hearts so to break even and not increase the debt they have to make cuts of upwards of £8m or so a year. Aye, right!

CropleyWasGod
03-05-2012, 12:33 PM
I think some Hibbies need to take the blinkers off and see this as intent to clear the debt by whatever means.

Those stating that the debt would have been blah blah blah without debt for equity / debt forgiveness etc. need to realise that this has happened and can only be a good thing for the club.
If Hibs had been in this position and Sir Tom was doing the same thing we would be banging on about how great a guy he was, surely the yams are entitled to think the same?

.

But it hasn't cleared any debt. All it has done is move it from one part of the Balance Sheet to another.

Had STF done it, I would've had the same misgivings. It's window-dressing, pure and simple.

Part/Time Supporter
03-05-2012, 12:35 PM
I think some Hibbies need to take the blinkers off and see this as intent to clear the debt by whatever means.

Those stating that the debt would have been blah blah blah without debt for equity / debt forgiveness etc. need to realise that this has happened and can only be a good thing for the club.
If Hibs had been in this position and Sir Tom was doing the same thing we would be banging on about how great a guy he was, surely the yams are entitled to think the same?

How did we reduce our debt? We sold anyone who was worth a bit of cash. How have the yams done it? Debt for worthless equity. I ask you all, what would prefer?!

From these accounts they are clearly addressing the problem and yes they may suffer on the park as a result but in this league it doesn't take spending cash to make you successful, i.e. Motherwell and St Johnstone. 2 small clubs in comparison to Hearts yet are performing better this season on shoestring income.
Get the right manager and infrastructure on the park and you can do well in this country.

It was a good thing, because they're not getting the money again. It's already been spent, on Obua, Kingston et al. They're no better off than they were before Romanov splurged all that money. This isn't like Man City, where a massive investment turned a mid-table team (at best) into a Champions League outfit. Hearts' league positions in the 6-7 years under Romanov are broadly similar to the 6-7 years before him (third a few times, mid-table a few times).

Now they'll have to go through a massive cost-cutting exercise, much more extensive than the pruning they've done so far. Whether or not it affects them significantly on the park depends on whether they can source cheap players of a decent standard.

grunt
03-05-2012, 12:43 PM
But it hasn't cleared any debt. All it has done is move it from one part of the Balance Sheet to another.
... It's window-dressing, pure and simple.
Surely you can say that about the £10m DfE arrangement, but in forgiving the £8m debt is he not writing it off?

Part/Time Supporter
03-05-2012, 12:43 PM
This table puts it into context.

http://theweeman.posterous.com/spl-clubs-average-wages-in-201011

SPL average weekly wage in 2010/11

Celtic 20,893
Rangers 16,111
Hearts 6,435
Hibs 3,387
Aberdeen 3,062
Dundee Utd 2,563
Killie 2,452
Motherwell 2,365
St. Mirren 2,086
St. Johnstone 1,999
ICT 1,246
Hamilton 1,090

The figures are probably inflated by non-playing staff and employer's national insurance, but give a general picture. If Hearts cut their wages by the amount needed to break even, they will come down from being way ahead in third, to possibly below Hibs and Aberdeen.

Sergio sledge
03-05-2012, 12:44 PM
I think some Hibbies need to take the blinkers off and see this as intent to clear the debt by whatever means.

Those stating that the debt would have been blah blah blah without debt for equity / debt forgiveness etc. need to realise that this has happened and can only be a good thing for the club.
If Hibs had been in this position and Sir Tom was doing the same thing we would be banging on about how great a guy he was, surely the yams are entitled to think the same?

How did we reduce our debt? We sold anyone who was worth a bit of cash. How have the yams done it? Debt for worthless equity. I ask you all, what would prefer?!

From these accounts they are clearly addressing the problem and yes they may suffer on the park as a result but in this league it doesn't take spending cash to make you successful, i.e. Motherwell and St Johnstone. 2 small clubs in comparison to Hearts yet are performing better this season on shoestring income.
Get the right manager and infrastructure on the park and you can do well in this country.

You are forgetting that Hearts also sold anyone worth any money; Gordon, Wallace, Jonsson, Berra, Velicka, Bednar, Skacel, Hartley. I make that nearly £17m in transfer income in the last 5 years. You are correct that Romanov and his company have been hugely generous to Hearts and this is good for the club, but IMHO, the debt for equity and debt forgiveness has been forced on Romanov through the fact that Hearts have been at or near their debt ceiling because of massive mismanagement.

brog
03-05-2012, 01:16 PM
Anyone know are they still showing the Lee Wallace money as due from Ibrox, is it doubtful income or written off?
On that note & without scouring the million pages on R in Admin I loved a correspondent in DR complaining that Rangers didn't get enough from Everton for Jelavic!! They didn't even pay Vienna for him!! I'm astonished that transfer was allowed. Sorry for straying!

Caversham Green
03-05-2012, 01:20 PM
Hearts turnover for the 11 months to 30 June £6.9m
Hibs turnover for the year to 31 July 2011 £7m.

I'm sure they will bleat on about the fact that their accounts are for an 11 month period, but there is never any income during July anyway.
Who's the wee team now?

:agree: Turnover covers the whole 2010-2011 season and would not have increased materially if July had been included. On the other hand wages, rates and other costs are paid over the whole year so in effect we have the full year's income but only 11 months of costs.

And they still made £7.5m losses.....

CropleyWasGod
03-05-2012, 01:23 PM
Surely you can say that about the £10m DfE arrangement, but in forgiving the £8m debt is he not writing it off?

That's what I get for only half-reading the thread. I had assumed this was another swap.
:rolleyes:

Like I say, I haven't seen the accounts. Has anyone here? I would like to know what the auditors said.


Also, I am thinking that debt forgiveness incurs a tax charge. Cav??

jgl07
03-05-2012, 01:33 PM
This table puts it into context.

http://theweeman.posterous.com/spl-clubs-average-wages-in-201011

SPL average weekly wage in 2010/11

Celtic 20,893
Rangers 16,111
Hearts 6,435
Hibs 3,387
Aberdeen 3,062
Dundee Utd 2,563
Killie 2,452
Motherwell 2,365
St. Mirren 2,086
St. Johnstone 1,999
ICT 1,246
Hamilton 1,090

The figures are probably inflated by non-playing staff and employer's national insurance, but give a general picture. If Hearts cut their wages by the amount needed to break even, they will come down from being way ahead in third, to possibly below Hibs and Aberdeen.

Hearts appear to have a trading loss of £4.6 million (according to CWG) on a turnover of £6.9 million and a wage bill of £8 million.

To break even their wage bill will have to be cut dramatically by more than 50%.

They could be paying less than Killie and not much more than St Mirren!

It sounds like everyone out contract will be gone. It is already happening.

Caversham Green
03-05-2012, 02:12 PM
That's what I get for only half-reading the thread. I had assumed this was another swap.
:rolleyes:

Like I say, I haven't seen the accounts. Has anyone here? I would like to know what the auditors said.


Also, I am thinking that debt forgiveness incurs a tax charge. Cav??

Sort of. It represents the reduction of expenses from previous years on which tax relief has been claimed, so that relief is now reversed. They won't actually pay any tax on it though, it will just go to reduce their available tax losses.

Like you I'll be interested to know what sort of qualification their audit report carries.

Caversham Green
03-05-2012, 02:15 PM
Hearts appear to have a trading loss of £4.6 million (according to CWG) on a turnover of £6.9 million and a wage bill of £8 million.

To break even their wage bill will have to be cut dramatically by more than 50%.

They could be paying less than Killie and not much more than St Mirren!

It sounds like everyone out contract will be gone. It is already happening.

Remember too that that wages bill is only for 11 months. If wages accrues evenly (they won't because of appearance and win bonuses etc) there would be a further £720k+ to add to that.

greenginger
03-05-2012, 07:00 PM
Its not all sweetness and light over at the PBS. Speedy Asset Services , whoever they may be , got them up in the Sheriff Court ( small claims ) next Wednesday.

Tramps ! :greengrin

JT Fae The Toon
03-05-2012, 07:59 PM
On a topical note - this may explain how the Finances work across the city? :wink:

Not claiming this as my own work - nicked from JKB

http://i46.tinypic.com/ztccco.jpg

jgl07
03-05-2012, 08:00 PM
On a topical note - this may explain how the Finances work across the city? :wink:

Not claiming this as my own work - nicked from JKB

http://i46.tinypic.com/ztccco.jpg

Nice one!

BEEJ
03-05-2012, 09:57 PM
And on the same topic, if anyone can decode the explanation in the press statement about why turnover has dropped...?

"The reduction (in turnover) is due to reduction of costs as the result of a successful partnership agreement entered into with SRM, the club's new retail partner, which significantly improved margin opportunities and cash flow advantages". Sounds like classic Pravda reporting to me.
:greengrin Just brilliant! So utterly unintelligible and financially meaningless that it's practically genius.

They must have commissioned a couple of comedy writers to write the Directors' Report.

BurghHibby
03-05-2012, 10:19 PM
Its not all sweetness and light over at the PBS. Speedy Asset Services , whoever they may be , got them up in the Sheriff Court ( small claims ) next Wednesday.

Tramps ! :greengrin

Plant hire company, group name for Speedy Hire.

down the slope
04-05-2012, 05:14 PM
HMRC sniffing around the yams ?,

I just received my copy of the accounts this morning. A few odd things jumped out at me. They are probably nothing to get particularly concerned about, but interesting all the same

Page 12 The £8.8M forgiveness of debt was routed through a company called Natborg Projects Corp. It seems to be a Vlad controlled company registered in Panama. Why Vlad has links with companies in Panama is anyone's guess.

Page 21 Contingent liabilities - This is the ongoing tax investigation that had been reported in the accounts for the previous three years. This seems to have moved on since the last set of accounts in that HMRC have now raised an assessment (bill) of what they believe Hearts are due. (There is no indication of how much the bill is for). It appears that the club is making legal arguments against the assessments. That suggests to me that the assessment has been "appealed" and will probably go through a First Tier Tribunal (FTT) as RFC have done with their Big Tax case.

Page22 Post Balance sheet events - The club has received £2.9M in compensation income under a contract to sell players. What players or ex players does this relate to or what player trading activities outside the club have Hearts been involved in.

There is no mention of a shareholding of 15% of the club that was held in the name of Quantum Holdings SA, a Swiss based company as listed on the club's annual return on 22nd September 2011. Does QH still own these shares?

These are probably questions for the AGM, unless anyone else has further information. Unfortunately I won't be able to make the AGM this year due to other commitments.

Hibernia Na Eir
04-05-2012, 05:51 PM
quite simply, why on earth would an unknown Lithuanian lot gift Hearts £10m or whatever when they have already stated they no longer have an interest in the football?

as stated above, It's purely window dressing. anyone believing differently is a fool.

greenlex
04-05-2012, 06:00 PM
HMRC sniffing around the yams ?,

I just received my copy of the accounts this morning. A few odd things jumped out at me. They are probably nothing to get particularly concerned about, but interesting all the same

Page 12 The £8.8M forgiveness of debt was routed through a company called Natborg Projects Corp. It seems to be a Vlad controlled company registered in Panama. Why Vlad has links with companies in Panama is anyone's guess.

Page 21 Contingent liabilities - This is the ongoing tax investigation that had been reported in the accounts for the previous three years. This seems to have moved on since the last set of accounts in that HMRC have now raised an assessment (bill) of what they believe Hearts are due. (There is no indication of how much the bill is for). It appears that the club is making legal arguments against the assessments. That suggests to me that the assessment has been "appealed" and will probably go through a First Tier Tribunal (FTT) as RFC have done with their Big Tax case.

Page22 Post Balance sheet events - The club has received £2.9M in compensation income under a contract to sell players. What players or ex players does this relate to or what player trading activities outside the club have Hearts been involved in.

There is no mention of a shareholding of 15% of the club that was held in the name of Quantum Holdings SA, a Swiss based company as listed on the club's annual return on 22nd September 2011. Does QH still own these shares?

These are probably questions for the AGM, unless anyone else has further information. Unfortunately I won't be able to make the AGM this year due to other commitments.
The compensation payment may be Spotty Gordon related? :dunno:

Barney McGrew
04-05-2012, 06:37 PM
In Hearts world they make a profit and massively reduce the debt yet in the real world they cannae pay their players on time

Maybe that's why one of their players has allegedly been supplying cup final tickets that are being punted for profit on the internet then.

greenginger
04-05-2012, 06:53 PM
HMRC sniffing around the yams ?,

I just received my copy of the accounts this morning. A few odd things jumped out at me. They are probably nothing to get particularly concerned about, but interesting all the same

Page 12 The £8.8M forgiveness of debt was routed through a company called Natborg Projects Corp. It seems to be a Vlad controlled company registered in Panama. Why Vlad has links with companies in Panama is anyone's guess.

Page 21 Contingent liabilities - This is the ongoing tax investigation that had been reported in the accounts for the previous three years. This seems to have moved on since the last set of accounts in that HMRC have now raised an assessment (bill) of what they believe Hearts are due. (There is no indication of how much the bill is for). It appears that the club is making legal arguments against the assessments. That suggests to me that the assessment has been "appealed" and will probably go through a First Tier Tribunal (FTT) as RFC have done with their Big Tax case.

Page22 Post Balance sheet events - The club has received £2.9M in compensation income under a contract to sell players. What players or ex players does this relate to or what player trading activities outside the club have Hearts been involved in.

There is no mention of a shareholding of 15% of the club that was held in the name of Quantum Holdings SA, a Swiss based company as listed on the club's annual return on 22nd September 2011. Does QH still own these shares?

These are probably questions for the AGM, unless anyone else has further information. Unfortunately I won't be able to make the AGM this year due to other commitments.

What does Hearts Auditors have to say about them being a "going concern". Have the Audits been treated to a sight of the highly classified UBIG accounts.

greenlex
04-05-2012, 06:58 PM
Maybe that's why one of their players has allegedly been supplying cup final tickets that are being punted for profit on the internet then.
someone struggling for cash?:hmmm:

Barney McGrew
04-05-2012, 07:04 PM
someone struggling for cash?:hmmm:

If I was a Hertz fan scrambling to get a ticket, I'd be raging to think that one of the players was buying extra and selling them for a profit.

Mikey
04-05-2012, 07:06 PM
If I was a Hertz fan scrambling to get a ticket, I'd be raging to think that one of the players was buying extra and selling them for a profit.

They'll just gloss over it.

Sergey
04-05-2012, 07:12 PM
If I was a Hertz fan scrambling to get a ticket, I'd be raging to think that one of the players was buying extra and selling them for a profit.

What about the 'ghost' directors that are on their books. You know the ones...like the 'Stadium Development' cretin from Lith....or the slapper who's still involved in peddling that Rrevolution *****. There's also a multitude of other Liths eking a decent wedge, no one more brazen than Vlad's own son.

Shafting the fans is all part of their remit.

Barney McGrew
04-05-2012, 07:19 PM
They'll just gloss over it.

:agree:

It'll be dressed up as us making stuff up. I'm sure if any journalist that might be reading this did a bit of digging then they'd be able to get a decent story out it though.

HibbiesandtheBaddies
04-05-2012, 07:22 PM
They'll just gloss over it.

:agree: Wallpapering over the cracks in the moral fabric of their sorry institution.

Hibby Kay-Yay
04-05-2012, 07:55 PM
What does Hearts Auditors have to say about them being a "going concern". Have the Audits been treated to a sight of the highly classified UBIG accounts.

Matters on which we are required to report by exception.

In respect solely of the limitation on our work relating to the assessment of the appropriateness of the going concern basis of preparation of the financial statements, described above, we have not obtained all the information and explanations that we considered necessary for the purpose of our audit.

CropleyWasGod
04-05-2012, 07:57 PM
Matters on which we are required to report by exception.

In respect solely of the limitation on our work relating to the assessment of the appropriateness of the going concern basis of preparation of the financial statements, described above, we have not obtained all the information and explanations that we considered necessary for the purpose of our audit.

That's a no then :greengrin

I do think that breaches the SFA's licence requirements. However, Cav can give us his thoughts on that.

Hibby Kay-Yay
04-05-2012, 08:00 PM
That's a no then :greengrin

:cb

It's relevant for May the forth...nothing to see here, move along, move along!

greenginger
04-05-2012, 09:58 PM
Matters on which we are required to report by exception.

In respect solely of the limitation on our work relating to the assessment of the appropriateness of the going concern basis of preparation of the financial statements, described above, we have not obtained all the information and explanations that we considered necessary for the purpose of our audit.

Same restriction as previous years. What was the date of the auditors signature ? It should show if the Accounts were available to lodge with SFA on 31 st March.

I'll get my own copy next week , honest. :greengrin

Caversham Green
04-05-2012, 10:31 PM
That's a no then :greengrin

I do think that breaches the SFA's licence requirements. However, Cav can give us his thoughts on that.

It's a going concern qualification, same as the last two years so it fails the new requirements.


Same restriction as previous years. What was the date of the auditors signature ? It should show if the Accounts were available to lodge with SFA on 31 st March.

I'll get my own copy next week , honest. :greengrin

Dated 5 April - another fail.

And the loss before forgiveness of debt is worse than the previous year, turnover is down by £1m and the HMRC investigation has now been assessed - in other words they've lost the case - but they haven't quantified it (which they should have done even if it's just in the notes). They have reduced the previously unpayable £36m net debt to a just as unpayable £24m though. £12m reduction by way of an £18m bail-out, they must be very pleased.

son of haggart
04-05-2012, 11:11 PM
It's a going concern qualification, same as the last two years so it fails the new requirements.



Dated 5 April - another fail.

And the loss before forgiveness of debt is worse than the previous year, turnover is down by £1m and the HMRC investigation has now been assessed - in other words they've lost the case - but they haven't quantified it (which they should have done even if it's just in the notes). They have reduced the previously unpayable £36m net debt to a just as unpayable £24m though. £12m reduction by way of an £18m bail-out, they must be very pleased.

Happy enough CG - £24m = £12m less than £36m

Could have been a lot worse and we have a football team for another year

Caversham Green
05-05-2012, 07:48 AM
Happy enough CG - £24m = £12m less than £36m

Could have been a lot worse and we have a football team for another year

Fair enough. Cup runners-up this season too - that should up the income a bit.

grunt
05-05-2012, 07:48 AM
"Since the year end the company has received £2.9m compensation income receivable under a contract to sell football players".

Does anyone know what this refers to?

Caversham Green
05-05-2012, 07:57 AM
"Since the year end the company has received £2.9m compensation income receivable under a contract to sell football players".

Does anyone know what this refers to?

It's a strange one. Must be add-ons or a sell-on percentage. I can't think of any ex-yams that have been sold on so it may be appearance money for the likes of Gordon or Berra?

Strange wording though.

grunt
05-05-2012, 08:12 AM
Thanks - I too thought the wording a little odd. I wondered if it was a sort of Ticketus deal, where they've maybe sold the rights to future player sales in return for cash now. But, do they have many players who would bring in that sort of cash? So, no, it can't be that. :dunno:

Part/Time Supporter
05-05-2012, 08:19 AM
Thanks - I too thought the wording a little odd. I wondered if it was a sort of Ticketus deal, where they've maybe sold the rights to future player sales in return for cash now. But, do they have many players who would bring in that sort of cash? So, no, it can't be that. :dunno:

That's exactly what it sounds like.

Benfica have done a deal along these lines, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benfica_Stars_Fund

"The team sold part of economic rights of 12 players to the fund, in exchange for cash. If Benfica sold the players, Benfica would gave back a percentage of transfer fees received to the fund."

£2.9M to Hearts for players sounds like the guts of their whole squad to be honest.

It might also be worthwhile asking the SFA and SPL whether third party ownership is legal in Scottish football. It isn't in England (post Tevez / Mascherano at West Ham).

Caversham Green
05-05-2012, 08:40 AM
Thanks - I too thought the wording a little odd. I wondered if it was a sort of Ticketus deal, where they've maybe sold the rights to future player sales in return for cash now. But, do they have many players who would bring in that sort of cash? So, no, it can't be that. :dunno:


That's exactly what it sounds like.

Benfica have done a deal along these lines, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benfica_Stars_Fund

"The team sold part of economic rights of 12 players to the fund, in exchange for cash. If Benfica sold the players, Benfica would gave back a percentage of transfer fees received to the fund."

£2.9M to Hearts for players sounds like the guts of their whole squad to be honest.

It might also be worthwhile asking the SFA and SPL whether third party ownership is legal in Scottish football. It isn't in England (post Tevez / Mascherano at West Ham).

The wording certainly suggests that more than my interpretation. Could it be a sort of pre-contract for the sale of players? :dunno:

No doubt the incisive yam shareholders will get to the bottom of it at the AGM if they have time after sorting out the lighting arrangements in the main stand.

Kaiser1962
05-05-2012, 10:40 AM
Happy enough CG - £24m = £12m less than £36m

Could have been a lot worse and we have a football team for another year

If thats a DFE swap then has the £12m not just been added at the other end? What percentage is Vlads shareholding now?

Where Vlad has done you guys a favour is "forgiving" losses which are still over £100k a week despite them working on this for three seasons now. I thought reducing the debt might make Hearts (slightly) more attractive to a prospective buyer but, haemorrhaging cash like you are, maybe not.

There's also the small matter of HMRC chasing you guys for cash so there are undoubtedly interesting times ahead down Gorgie way, despite being in profit now two years running.

grunt
05-05-2012, 11:15 AM
... despite being in profit now two years running.Please don't perpetuate this myth about Hearts being profitable. The only reason there is a positive number at the foot of their P&L is because over the last two years, Vlad has written off £16.5m of the debt they owe him. Debt which was effectively worthless, because he stood no chance whatsoever of having it repaid. On top of this, I'll say it again, on top of this, he has also given them £10m in this year in a debt for equity swap. There was also a DfE swap of £12m in 2008. So despite writing off £16m, and converting £22m by DfE, they still owe him £24m.

The Hearts fans have mostly fixed on the press release and the "profit" announcement. Let's be clear - Hearts is not a profitable club. Any organisation that pays out £1.16 in wages for every £1 they get in income, is not profitable.

Incredibly, despite a declared intention to cut costs, their average number of players and coaches increased to 110 in 2011, from 97 in 2010. By comparison, Hibs reported 71 players and management; that's them with half as many again as us. I take back my previous comment - they still are the big team! :wink:

calmac12000
05-05-2012, 11:38 AM
Unfortunately the only way the Yams are likely to receive any penalty from the custodians of our beautiful game is if Pat Fenlon is shot by Sergio in the centre circle at Hampden!(Oh and of course if you can prove actual contact).
The sad truth is that as has been proved to date in the case of the Yam's big brothers, the financial rules of football cam be bent to suit whatever the paymasters require,

Kaiser1962
05-05-2012, 12:01 PM
Perhaps I should have put a :greengrin after my last sentence but I thought the tone of my post made it unneccesary.

Totally agree with you.



Please don't perpetuate this myth about Hearts being profitable. The only reason there is a positive number at the foot of their P&L is because over the last two years, Vlad has written off £16.5m of the debt they owe him. Debt which was effectively worthless, because he stood no chance whatsoever of having it repaid. On top of this, I'll say it again, on top of this, he has also given them £10m in this year in a debt for equity swap. There was also a DfE swap of £12m in 2008. So despite writing off £16m, and converting £22m by DfE, they still owe him £24m.

The Hearts fans have mostly fixed on the press release and the "profit" announcement. Let's be clear - Hearts is not a profitable club. Any organisation that pays out £1.16 in wages for every £1 they get in income, is not profitable.

Incredibly, despite a declared intention to cut costs, their average number of players and coaches increased to 110 in 2011, from 97 in 2010. By comparison, Hibs reported 71 players and management; that's them with half as many again as us. I take back my previous comment - they still are the big team! :wink:

greenginger
05-05-2012, 01:08 PM
That's exactly what it sounds like.

Benfica have done a deal along these lines, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benfica_Stars_Fund

"The team sold part of economic rights of 12 players to the fund, in exchange for cash. If Benfica sold the players, Benfica would gave back a percentage of transfer fees received to the fund."

£2.9M to Hearts for players sounds like the guts of their whole squad to be honest.

It might also be worthwhile asking the SFA and SPL whether third party ownership is legal in Scottish football. It isn't in England (post Tevez / Mascherano at West Ham).


Is there a chance that the £2.9 million for players is just a bit of creative accounting. Vlad is writing off debt and doing debt for equity swops but none of that should help make their accounts comply with European Fair play rules.
Just invent some extra income from past transfer deals, I doubt their auditors are going to demand to see the paper work.

When does the financial balancing rules come into play and I take it loan write-offs and D for E deals are discounted.

greenginger
06-05-2012, 09:11 AM
I've just been looking at a download of the Yams 2011 accounts and the first thing that struck me is that they have not been signed by their auditors Johnston Carmichael.

Previous Yam accounts and any accounts I have ever seen have the auditors signature at the end of the auditors statement but the accounts posted just has the typed names as per a set of draft accounts.

Can anyone who has a proper set of Yam accounts check page 7 for a signature and does anybody else think its a bit dodgy ?

Caversham Green
06-05-2012, 09:36 AM
I've just been looking at a download of the Yams 2011 accounts and the first thing that struck me is that they have not been signed by their auditors Johnston Carmichael.

Previous Yam accounts and any accounts I have ever seen have the auditors signature at the end of the auditors statement but the accounts posted just has the typed names as per a set of draft accounts.

Can anyone who has a proper set of Yam accounts check page 7 for a signature and does anybody else think its a bit dodgy ?

That's a 'typesigned' shareholder's copy. Because a copy of the accounts has to go out to every shareholder, the auditor can't sign every one so a standard printed copy is sent. There are probably pictures of happy yams and stuff like that on your copy as well. The one that's sent to Cos Hos will be on plain paper and hand-signed by the auditor.

Sadly, nothing to see here.

greenginger
06-05-2012, 11:42 AM
That's a 'typesigned' shareholder's copy. Because a copy of the accounts has to go out to every shareholder, the auditor can't sign every one so a standard printed copy is sent. There are probably pictures of happy yams and stuff like that on your copy as well. The one that's sent to Cos Hos will be on plain paper and hand-signed by the auditor.

Sadly, nothing to see here.


Thanks, I just seem to have a suspicious mind when it comes to anything to do with the Yams. I can't think why. :greengrin

jgl07
19-10-2012, 02:23 PM
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20120503/hearts-lifted-by-financial-results_2241384_2757696

I'm struggling to see how there can be a profit from those figures.

£6.9m turnover for the period, with staff costs still over £8m, operating costs at £3.6m and Vlad's cut (sorry, finance charges :wink:) at £1.44m.

The only way there can be a profit surely is counting whatever DFE swap they've done?

It's a bogus profit and certainly will not count for the purposes of UEFA regarding Financial Fair Play. Not that Hearts will be troubled by that given the current League table.