PDA

View Full Version : Was it cheating?



Springbank
20-06-2013, 08:16 PM
Tom English really went down in my estimation this evening.

Should we condone cheating that leads, directly eventually and inevitably, to innocent people losing their jobs?

Hearts board and Hearts fans had plenty opportunity to change direction long before it came to this and they can't say they weren't warned.

Not many jambos express any regret (see the "it was all worth it thread" on kickback).

That tells me one thing - they think it's a victimless crime. And that means they'll just repeat the same behaviour in future.

Dead by 2019 if they somehow survive this turn of the yam 8 year cycle of boom'n'bust'n'needanewsaviour

Part/Time Supporter
20-06-2013, 08:19 PM
Tom English really went down in my estimation this evening.

Should we condone cheating that leads, directly eventually and inevitably, to innocent people losing their jobs?

Hearts board and Hearts fans had plenty opportunity to change direction long before it came to this and they can't say they weren't warned.

Not many jambos express any regret (see the "it was all worth it thread" on kickback).

That tells me one thing - they think it's a victimless crime. And that means they'll just repeat the same behaviour in future.

Dead by 2019 if they somehow survive this turn of the yam 8 year cycle of boom'n'bust'n'needanewsaviour

I'm very uncomfortable with this talk of cheating. The one situation where they sailed too close to the wind IMO was signing in Beattie in 2012 when they were struggling to pay the staff they already had. There weren't any rules in place about that at the time and they were subsequently changed because of that situation. The general "cheating" complaint of spending 100%+ of turnover on wages can be laid at so many other clubs to the point where it isn't really a valid complaint at all.

God Petrie
20-06-2013, 08:22 PM
I prefer the term "financial doping"

Mr White
20-06-2013, 08:23 PM
I'm very uncomfortable with this talk of cheating. The one situation where they sailed too close to the wind IMO was signing in Beattie in 2012 when they were struggling to pay the staff they already had. There weren't any rules in place about that at the time and they were subsequently changed because of that situation. The general "cheating" complaint of spending 100%+ of turnover on wages can be laid at so many other clubs to the point where it isn't really a valid complaint at all.
even when those actions lead to the clubs demise, damages the leagues already weak reputation and leaves many people unemployed? I get what you're saying about not breaching specific rules but morally it's wrong and against the spirit of the game and sport in general imo by gaining an unfair advantage they couldn't afford.

ScottB
20-06-2013, 08:25 PM
I'm very uncomfortable with this talk of cheating. The one situation where they sailed too close to the wind IMO was signing in Beattie in 2012 when they were struggling to pay the staff they already had. There weren't any rules in place about that at the time and they were subsequently changed because of that situation. The general "cheating" complaint of spending 100%+ of turnover on wages can be laid at so many other clubs to the point where it isn't really a valid complaint at all.

Indeed, much of what they have done is pretty morally dodgy, be it essentially spending some poor Lithuanians savings, playing players they haven't paid et all, but unless there are black and white rules against it, it isn't cheating.

The sad point is that these things weren't already in the rulebook as cheating, or in some cases, still aren't.

bingo70
20-06-2013, 08:26 PM
I'm very uncomfortable with this talk of cheating. The one situation where they sailed too close to the wind IMO was signing in Beattie in 2012 when they were struggling to pay the staff they already had. There weren't any rules in place about that at the time and they were subsequently changed because of that situation. The general "cheating" complaint of spending 100%+ of turnover on wages can be laid at so many other clubs to the point where it isn't really a valid complaint at all.

If I gave someone 20 quid that had no intention of paying it back I'd think I'd been cheated out of that money, if I gave someone that 20 quid but they fell on hard times and couldn't afford to give me it back I'd say that's one of those things and put it down to bad luck.

The amount of money that hearts spent over the last 7 year's is what makes them different from the other clubs imo

Craig_in_Prague
20-06-2013, 08:28 PM
even when those actions lead to the clubs demise, damages the leagues already weak reputation and leaves many people unemployed? I get what you're saying about not breaching specific rules but morally it's wrong and against the spirit of the game and sport in general imo.

FIFA said did they not, that spending beyond your means is 2nd only to match fixing itself.
It IS cheating. If not cheating the sport and all other clubs, the public are cheated out of unpaid taxes etc.
They have known fine well their wages was way too high (more than income), but owed it to themselves. hmmmm.
Deliberately taken advantage over your competitors
CHEATS

pedroorange1875
20-06-2013, 08:39 PM
Tom English really went down in my estimation this evening.

Totally agree, could not believe what i was hearing when he genuinely said all that is happening to Hearts and their support was "harsh" . eh???? what world have you been living on in the last 8 years. I would almost class him as a muppet for that statement, obviously joined the BBC sympathy squad

clerriehibs
20-06-2013, 08:43 PM
Cheating, without a doubt.

Overspending, with no intention of paying it back, to gain a material advantage is cheating.

Part/Time Supporter
20-06-2013, 08:45 PM
Cheating, without a doubt.

Overspending, with no intention of paying it back, to gain a material advantage is cheating.

Cheating who though?

Romanov converted a big chunk of that overspending into equity. Presumably if his businesses hadn't started to toil he would have written off even more.

To me it's not cheating unless you can establish that they broke a rule, or at least the spirit of a rule. Signing Beattie did that for me. There's also a slightly tenuous argument that they've traded while insolvent for some time to avoid relegation. The rub is that by doing that they have hampered their prospects of coming through insolvency successfully, because a big chunk of their 13/14 ST money is already gone.

The Falcon
20-06-2013, 08:47 PM
I'm very uncomfortable with this talk of cheating. The one situation where they sailed too close to the wind IMO was signing in Beattie in 2012 when they were struggling to pay the staff they already had. There weren't any rules in place about that at the time and they were subsequently changed because of that situation. The general "cheating" complaint of spending 100%+ of turnover on wages can be laid at so many other clubs to the point where it isn't really a valid complaint at all.

Who else in the SPL does this?

Hibercelona
20-06-2013, 08:48 PM
If I go to a money lender and borrow money on the basis that i'll be paying it back with the correct interest in X amount of days/weeks/months. Then surely failure to do so would bring about criminal charges?

Hearts haven't just cheated, they've broken the law. Why aren't they facing criminal charges?

Part/Time Supporter
20-06-2013, 08:50 PM
Who else in the SPL does this?

Most clubs were at or near 100% during the post-Sky contract period (2002/03).

NAE NOOKIE
20-06-2013, 09:02 PM
There were murmerings from other clubs long before the doo doo hit the fan about hearts seeming ability to attract players way outwith their price range.

Within the rules its not cheating, but it is the case that hearts continued to sign players they must have been aware were bringing the club to ruin over a year ago. Cheating, probably not, but to continue on a course they must have known would end in disaster is morally repugnant.

Baw187
20-06-2013, 09:02 PM
FIFA said did they not, that spending beyond your means is 2nd only to match fixing itself.
It IS cheating. If not cheating the sport and all other clubs, the public are cheated out of unpaid taxes etc.
They have known fine well their wages was way too high (more than income), but owed it to themselves. hmmmm.
Deliberately taken advantage over your competitors
CHEATS

This! I've just copied this in to a FB post as it echoes my sentiments exactly. Nobs

Iggy Pope
20-06-2013, 09:14 PM
Most clubs were at or near 100% during the post-Sky contract period (2002/03).

And since?

The Falcon
20-06-2013, 09:20 PM
Most clubs were at or near 100% during the post-Sky contract period (2002/03).

But surely most clubs took corrective action. Hearts were outbidding other clubs for players services with money they didnt have and wont, possibly never intended to, be paying back. they only did the debt forgiveness (again money they clearly didnt have) in an attempt to bypass the new fair play rules.

It would be fair enough if the money existed or was Vlads in the first place but it clearly wasnt. If that isnt gaining an unfair advantage I dont know what is.

Moon unit
20-06-2013, 09:22 PM
Tom English really went down in my estimation this evening.

Should we condone cheating that leads, directly eventually and inevitably, to innocent people losing their jobs?

Hearts board and Hearts fans had plenty opportunity to change direction long before it came to this and they can't say they weren't warned.

Not many jambos express any regret (see the "it was all worth it thread" on kickback).

That tells me one thing - they think it's a victimless crime. And that means they'll just repeat the same behaviour in future.

Dead by 2019 if they somehow survive this turn of the yam 8 year cycle of boom'n'bust'n'needanewsaviour
Ask Dundee fans if they feel cheated??...

CropleyWasGod
20-06-2013, 09:30 PM
If I go to a money lender and borrow money on the basis that i'll be paying it back with the correct interest in X amount of days/weeks/months. Then surely failure to do so would bring about criminal charges?

Hearts haven't just cheated, they've broken the law. Why aren't they facing criminal charges?

No. It would be the basis of a civil action.

It would only be criminal if it could be proved that you set out to deliberately defraud the lender.

Part/Time Supporter
20-06-2013, 09:30 PM
But surely most clubs took corrective action. Hearts were outbidding other clubs for players services with money they didnt have and won, possibly never intended to, be paying back. they only did the debt forgiveness (again money they clearly didnt have) in an attempt to bypass the new fair play rules.

Well, yes, they did take corrective action, but some did it via administration processes that allowed them to sack higher earners (eg Motherwell).

SPL clubs aren't really doing it now because there simply isn't the external finance available that there was 10 years ago from banks or outside investors. But some of your bigger clubs in Britain and Europe are still doing it. FFP is supposed to be addressing this point but there are arguments against and it remains to be seen whether it will even work effectively.


It would be fair eneough if the money existed or was Vlads in the first place but it clearly wasnt. If that isnt gaining an unfair advantage I dont know what is.

That's really an issue for the Lithuanians to consider, not Scottish football.

Kato
20-06-2013, 09:31 PM
When your club is part of a League you have a responsibility to your fellow members in order to keep that fabric viable and provide some kind of continuity. Of course each member has it's own business to look after and they are in competition with each other but each and every part of it has an onus upon it to be fiscally responsible which would allow the League as a whole to flourish. I don't it's a coincidence that since Rangers (rip) started Financially Doping their club under Souness that football in this country has withered rather than flourished. Every club has struggled to one extent or another to keep up as best they can with a club that was never going to meet it's financial responsibility. That kind of competition is ripe for characters like Romanov to enter and make huge cash promises, again which are never going to be met.


The background to this is, apparently, some kind of embezzlement and/or money laundering going on with Romanov's business practices. There is a warrant out for his arrest for embezzling his investors cash and I reckon over the next few months and years the full extent of the chicanery will expose for more than the allegations he is already facing. He used HMFC as part of that chicanery. When he first arrived there were suspicions voiced on here that money would be laundered through them within hours and it seems that is exactly what was going on. Financially doping a sports club can be part of that process, ploughing money through a club in one country whilst the actual financial transactions take place abroad is a known method washing dodgy cash.

There are some Hearts fans out there saying it was the Global financial breakdown which is ot blame for the debt crashing down which is nonsense. The Global financial breakdown merely exposed the crimes.


http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/ML%20through%20the%20Football%20Sector.pdf

The above is a link to a great document that shows exactly how money laundering in football works. It's only 42 pages and well worth a read for anyone who has followed the actual content of the "Financial meltdown" thread.

For example does this ring any bells?


Financial needs of football clubs: Despite the tremendous growth of the industry as a whole,
many football clubs are financially in bad shape and their financial trouble could urge football clubs to accept funds from dubious parties. The financial fragility is partly the result of the nature of the game. Big clubs need large sums to have success and to be able to buy players. Sport is a typical „winner-take-all market‟.

Winner-takes-all markets do not pay according to absolute performances but according to performance relative to others. Losing just one game can have massive financial consequences (decline of income from sponsors, television rights, relegation to a lower division). Financial vulnerabilities can make football clubs an easy target for dirty money. Clubs that face relegation or are in financial trouble could be in need of „financial doping‟. The inherent financial fragility could be exaggerated by the recent global financial crisis, which has made it harder to find sponsors. There is a risk that clubs that are in debt will not ask many questions when a new investor appears. Moreover, a very high proportion of the sector‟s cost base is composed of tax, meaning in some cases a culture of seeking to circumvent tax and closer
proximity to underground activities.


I also think English is being naive in the extreme or is being disingenuous. Sports journalists have proven themselves utterly hopeless the last two years or so when it's come down "investigating" the financial goings on of football in Scotland. They are scared to rock the boat and perhaps reluctant to tarnish it's image. More fool them as the game needs cleansed of the crooks and to move.

I think Hearts cheated - they financially doped their club and those close enough to see what was happening said nothing and the debt was allowed to built up without supporters or the clubs Grandees complaining. Their ex-Chairman admitted the other day that the loans being made to the club as early as 2005 were unsustainable which amounts to financial doping. He also said the "locals" i.e. Foulkes et al said the same at the time. They never said this in public however and therefore were complicit in the doping of a club and the outcome which is becoming more apparent every day, which is the death of a club and a tearing in the fabric of a football League.

Hibercelona
20-06-2013, 09:36 PM
No. It would be the basis of a civil action.

It would only be criminal if it could be proved that you set out to deliberately defraud the lender.

And that can't be proven with Hearts? Even although we all knew they were borrowing money that they had no intentions of ever paying back?

MyJo
20-06-2013, 09:36 PM
Its cheating pure and simple.

Spending money you do not have, cannot afford to borrow and have no intentions of paying back in order to improve the performance of a football club and win cups and league placings ahead of those who are operating on a manageable budget is no different to an athlete artificially improving their performance beyond their normal limits and those of their rivals in order to win medals or competitions.

Have a look at Lance Armstrong to see how cheats should be treated........in fact scrub that because at least he has had the decency to admit he was a cheat and at least show some remorse for what he has done, Hearts continue to trot out the "wouldn't change a thing" line despite watching honest, hard-working people being put out of a job in a difficult economic climate because of the cheating methods, actively and purposefully, engaged in by the hearts owners and board over the last 8 years.

The fans were warned, the evidence was there yet they turned a blind eye and celebrated their ill-gotten gains while rubbing it in the noses of us and the rest of scottish football. They are up to their smegging armpits in this river of s***e that is currently washing them away and i have zero sympathy for them, they are just as bad and as much to blame as Romanov and his cronies and they deserve every kick they are receiving on the way back down.

****** them.

Scouse Hibee
20-06-2013, 09:37 PM
Cheating refers to an immoral way of achieving a goal, It is generally used for the breaking of rules to gain unfair advantage in a competitive situation

MyJo
20-06-2013, 09:37 PM
Well, yes, they did take corrective action, but some did it via administration processes that allowed them to sack higher earners (eg Motherwell).

SPL clubs aren't really doing it now because there simply isn't the external finance available that there was 10 years ago from banks or outside investors. But some of your bigger clubs in Britain and Europe are still doing it. FFP is supposed to be addressing this point but there are arguments against and it remains to be seen whether it will even work effectively.



That's really an issue for the Lithuanians to consider, not Scottish football.

Like Lance Armstrong said, "everyone else was doing it so why shouldn't i, it was just leveling the playing field" :wink:

Part/Time Supporter
20-06-2013, 09:38 PM
Okay, let's turn the argument upside down.

What if Tom Farmer was to have a brain wave tomorrow and suddenly decided to spend the whole of his personal wealth on Hibs over the next 10 years.

Would everyone here be arguing against it because it would be "cheating"?

CropleyWasGod
20-06-2013, 09:39 PM
And that can't be proven with Hearts? Even although we all knew they were borrowing money that they had no intentions of ever paying back?

Where's the evidence for that? And who is this "we"?

IMO, the Romanov plan was clear from the outset. Develop a market for UKIO Bankas in Europe, and do that through the medium of TV exposure of the football team. He very nearly achieved that, too.

That doesn't say to me that they had no intention of paying it back. That says that they had a business plan that failed. That's not criminal.

MyJo
20-06-2013, 09:39 PM
Okay, let's turn the argument upside down.

What if Tom Farmer was to have a brain wave tomorrow and suddenly decided to spend the whole of his personal wealth on Hibs over the next 10 years.

Would everyone here be arguing against it because it would be "cheating"?

Would he be donating it or would he be expecting us to pay it back?

If he is donating it then its not cheating, if he expects us to pay it back and we have no intentions of doing so but still take the money then its cheating

Scouse Hibee
20-06-2013, 09:40 PM
Okay, let's turn the argument upside down.

What if Tom Farmer was to have a brain wave tomorrow and suddenly decided to spend the whole of his personal wealth on Hibs over the next 10 years.

Would everyone here be arguing against it because it would be "cheating"?


Spending money he can afford to spend is no comparison

Hibercelona
20-06-2013, 09:43 PM
Where's the evidence for that? And who is this "we"?

IMO, the Romanov plan was clear from the outset. Develop a market for UKIO Bankas in Europe, and do that through the medium of TV exposure of the football team. He very nearly achieved that, too.

That doesn't say to me that they had no intention of paying it back. That says that they had a business plan that failed. That's not criminal.

They were still borrowing money while failing to pay back older debts.

That would suggest to me that they had zero intentions of paying that money back and were just looking to try and prolong the inevitable.

blackpoolhibs
20-06-2013, 09:44 PM
Okay, let's turn the argument upside down.

What if Tom Farmer was to have a brain wave tomorrow and suddenly decided to spend the whole of his personal wealth on Hibs over the next 10 years.

Would everyone here be arguing against it because it would be "cheating"?

How would that be cheating, its his money? Vlad it appears never put his money in, he has borrowed it from here there and everywhere to the detriment of aluminium workers, basketball teams and god knows how many bank workers?

Plus STF would owe it to himself. :wink:

CropleyWasGod
20-06-2013, 09:46 PM
They were still borrowing money while failing to pay back older debts.

That would suggest to me that they had zero intentions of paying that money back and were just looking to try and prolong the inevitable.

And that is common in business. When a company gets in a hole, it often tries to get out of that hole by borrowing more. Doesn't suggest to me any intent not to pay it back. Again, not criminal..... irresponsible on the part of the lender and borrower, but not against the law.

Kato
20-06-2013, 09:51 PM
IMO, the Romanov plan was clear from the outset. Develop a market for UKIO Bankas in Europe, and do that through the medium of TV exposure of the football team. He very nearly achieved that, too.

Where's the evidence that was his plan? It's "clear" that's what he said his plan was but that doesn't mean there wasn't an ulterior plan behind that. If I wanted to set up a bank in a foreign country and was using ownership of a sports club as PR I'd make sure the running of that sports club was tight as a drum. Instead he more or less instantly started "borrowing" far too much money from his bank and "loaned" it to the sports club and compounded that borrowing year upon year.

I don't think the bank, the club or the investment arm of the bank was important to him at all. I think some other, probably criminal, pursuit was at the heart of it all - and I also think he is probably very rich indeed and that we will never see hide nor hair of him ever again.

CropleyWasGod
20-06-2013, 09:55 PM
Where's the evidence that was his plan? It's "clear" that's what he said his plan was but that doesn't mean there wasn't an ulterior plan behind that. If I wanted to set up a bank in a foreign country and was using ownership of a sports club as PR I'd make sure the running of that sports club was tight as a drum. Instead he more or less instantly started "borrowing" far too much money from his bank and "loaned" it to the sports club and compounded that borrowing year upon year.

I don't think the bank, the club or the investment arm of the bank was important to him at all. I think some other, probably criminal, pursuit was at the heart of it all - and I also think he is probably very rich indeed and that we will never see hide nor hair of him ever again.

I did say "IMO", which opinion is based on experience. When it didn't work first time round (ie when he stupidly sacked Burley and lost the league and the CL spot), he tried it again and again, as many businesses do. I have seen that scenario many times, on many different scales.

Where's the evidence for your "criminal" charge?

Hibercelona
20-06-2013, 10:00 PM
And that is common in business. When a company gets in a hole, it often tries to get out of that hole by borrowing more. Doesn't suggest to me any intent not to pay it back. Again, not criminal..... irresponsible on the part of the lender and borrower, but not against the law.

Borrowing even more money while failing to pay back money that you borrowed before, just so you can inject it all into a football club or business so they can have a short term jolly, doesn't seem legal to me at all.

Hibercelona
20-06-2013, 10:02 PM
I did say "IMO", which opinion is based on experience. When it didn't work first time round (ie when he stupidly sacked Burley and lost the league and the CL spot), he tried it again and again, as many businesses do. I have seen that scenario many times, on many different scales.

Where's the evidence for your "criminal" charge?

Haven't you ever heard the saying:

Insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." :wink:

CropleyWasGod
20-06-2013, 10:03 PM
Borrowing even more money while failing to pay back money that you borrowed before, just so you can inject it all into a football club or business so they can have a short term jolly, doesn't seem legal to me at all.

It is.

It's irresponsible, but legal.

Who would you blame, though? The borrower or the lender?

Treadstone
20-06-2013, 10:05 PM
Where's the evidence for that? And who is this "we"?

IMO, the Romanov plan was clear from the outset. Develop a market for UKIO Bankas in Europe, and do that through the medium of TV exposure of the football team. He very nearly achieved that, too.

That doesn't say to me that they had no intention of paying it back. That says that they had a business plan that failed. That's not criminal.

Define 'nearly' regarding this instance.

Kato
20-06-2013, 10:07 PM
I did say "IMO", which opinion is based on experience. When it didn't work first time round (ie when he stupidly sacked Burley and lost the league and the CL spot), he tried it again and again, as many businesses do. I have seen that scenario many times, on many different scales.

Where's the evidence for your "criminal" charge?

http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/40166/the-international-search-for-ex-head-of-ukio-bankas-may-be-announced-201340166/

CropleyWasGod
20-06-2013, 10:10 PM
Define 'nearly' regarding this instance.

Had Hearts won the League that year, as they should have with Burley in charge, they would have been in the CL directly. The money earned from that would have justified the spending up to that point. Thereafter, the exposure of UKIO, as shirt sponsor, on TV throughout Europe would have given them a foothold. And so on and so on...

Eyrie
20-06-2013, 10:10 PM
It depends on your definition of cheating. Is it an absolute crime of breaking a law, or a relative one of having a different morality?

As sensible people who follow a prudently run club, we regard it as cheating but the key point is that no laws or regulations were broken by their financial doping so that is just our opinion. Someone with a different opinion would reply that they only owed the money to themselves, or it was their owner's largesse and so not cheating.

It could be said that we were cheated by ALL the clubs since it was clear what the Yams were doing but the rules were never changed to stop it happening. A wages-to-turnover rule would have been a simple plan to implement but there was no willingness on the part of the other clubs to introduce such a rule.

SMAXXA
20-06-2013, 10:11 PM
I did say "IMO", which opinion is based on experience. When it didn't work first time round (ie when he stupidly sacked Burley and lost the league and the CL spot), he tried it again and again, as many businesses do. I have seen that scenario many times, on many different scales.

Where's the evidence for your "criminal" charge?

He didn't though, there was no guarantee that any change in manager would have resulted in a different fortune for those concerned?

CropleyWasGod
20-06-2013, 10:12 PM
http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/40166/the-international-search-for-ex-head-of-ukio-bankas-may-be-announced-201340166/

That says nothing to me about any criminal aspect to the investment in Hearts.

greenginger
20-06-2013, 10:17 PM
Don't think he was ever going to get a banking license in the UK and I think other banks Ukio approached to act as a supervising bank were warned off so the Bank never got to first base.

Rent and Rates and staff on an idle piece of property for 7 years .... £ 1 million down the drain.

SMAXXA
20-06-2013, 10:17 PM
]Had Hearts won the League that year, as they should have with Burley in charge[/B], they would have been in the CL directly. The money earned from that would have justified the spending up to that point. Thereafter, the exposure of UKIO, as shirt sponsor, on TV throughout Europe would have given them a foothold. And so on and so on...

Where about? This was a team that took maximum points 30/30 and failed when they played Celtic in a crunch match so how the hell is that saying they should have won it. That's twice ive quoted you on Hearts should have done this and that and to be fair yes they were challenging and great for them (on money they couldn't afford so yes cheating in the grand scheme of things) yet they didn't win the league and are as most expected have been found out for the financial mess (basket case) as they say in the media that they are. No ifs buts they are where they are and if that's cheating then yes I believe they have. (from the top down may I add)

Treadstone
20-06-2013, 10:19 PM
Had Hearts won the League that year, as they should have with Burley in charge, they would have been in the CL directly. The money earned from that would have justified the spending up to that point. Thereafter, the exposure of UKIO, as shirt sponsor, on TV throughout Europe would have given them a foothold. And so on and so on...

Should have is a bit of a stretch. The Burley team of the early weeks of that season that blew teams away in the first twenty minutes, were showing signs just before he was sacked of finding it more difficult to win these games. They had already experienced a league cup defeat to a poor Livingston team.

They finished 17pts behind Celtic, although the gap would probably have been closer if retaining Burley I don't share your confidence that they should have won the league.

Kato
20-06-2013, 10:19 PM
That says nothing to me about any criminal aspect to the investment in Hearts.

It says nothing and yet it says everything. As I said over the next few months years we'll see exactly how much criminal activity he involved Hearts in. I don't doubt if any of his own personal cash went into Hearts, but that's conjecture.

Anyway "criminal" and "cheating" aren't exactly the same thing. It's obvious, to me, that he Financially Doped (using the Benjamin's as fiscal steriods to artificially enhance their performances) his football club, in my eyes and apparently FIFA's that's cheating.

I doubt there is any recourse to what he did, but he did.

CropleyWasGod
20-06-2013, 10:25 PM
Where about? This was a team that took maximum points 30/30 and failed when they played Celtic in a crunch match so how the hell is that saying they should have won it. That's twice ive quoted you on Hearts should have done this and that and to be fair yes they were challenging and great for them (on money they couldn't afford so yes cheating in the grand scheme of things) yet they didn't win the league and are as most expected have been found out for the financial mess (basket case) as they say in the media that they are. No ifs buts they are where they are and if that's cheating then yes I believe they have. (from the top down may I add)

I have no argument with the cheating(although I prefer the term "financial doping" as well :greengrin) bit. My argument is that I understood his business plan and, again IMO, it very nearly came off. His mistake was to keep pouring cash down that same hole. Commercially suicidal and, in a sporting environment, plain wrong.

clerriehibs
20-06-2013, 10:26 PM
Well, yes, they did take corrective action, but some did it via administration processes that allowed them to sack higher earners (eg Motherwell).

SPL clubs aren't really doing it now because there simply isn't the external finance available that there was 10 years ago from banks or outside investors. But some of your bigger clubs in Britain and Europe are still doing it. FFP is supposed to be addressing this point but there are arguments against and it remains to be seen whether it will even work effectively.



That's really an issue for the Lithuanians to consider, not Scottish football.

I can't agree; Vlad was at the helm of both the banks and homfc, and if he was using cheating methods in Lithuania to fund homfc, then it's not just a "was it cheating in Lithuania?" question.

The Falcon
20-06-2013, 10:45 PM
It is.

It's irresponsible, but legal.

Who would you blame, though? The borrower or the lender?

Depends who makes the laws.

MP's can flip houses and claim expenses but an out of work plumber cant do a job on the side to feed his family without declaring it, he might even go to jail.

It was also perfectly legal to sell Rangers assets at £1.5m, 70 times less than the signed off accounts, and then be revalued 40 times higher a matter of days later. Perfectly legal and carried out with impunity by the administrators.

Purple & Green
20-06-2013, 11:10 PM
I can't get a straight answer from any jambo on the question was 5-1 worth it now that people have lost their jobs?

Kato
20-06-2013, 11:45 PM
Vlad was at the helm of both the banks and homfc

Vital aspect imho.

greenginger
20-06-2013, 11:56 PM
Nothing illegal done by " hearts " ? :confused:

If the money thats been funding them for the past 7 years is found to have been stolen from Ukio bankas, how about receiving stolen goods for starters.

Also, the route of the cash flow seem to be Ukio > UBIG > Hearts, that seems like conspiracy to defraud a Bank to me.

and, if any of Vlad's dirty money found its way to pay a Heart's bill or two, then there could be money laundering charges as well.

But, will anyone want to look ?

Hibs Giant
21-06-2013, 12:58 AM
The background to this is, apparently, some kind of embezzlement and/or money laundering going on with Romanov's business practices. There is a warrant out for his arrest for embezzling his investors cash and I reckon over the next few months and years the full extent of the chicanery will expose for more than the allegations he is already facing. He used HMFC as part of that chicanery. When he first arrived there were suspicions voiced on here that money would be laundered through them within hours and it seems that is exactly what was going on.

In the financial services industry it's compulsory that all staff undergo regular anti-money laundering training so that they understand and can spot potential cases.
Dodgy foreign businessman buys failing company and operates it at a loss, making seemingly irrational and inefficient financial decisions, is basically an absolute stick-on for illegal activity. I've been at a complete loss as to how what was happening at Hearts didn't attract intense legal scrutiny.

Hibs Giant
21-06-2013, 01:09 AM
Had Hearts won the League that year, as they should have with Burley in charge, they would have been in the CL directly. The money earned from that would have justified the spending up to that point. Thereafter, the exposure of UKIO, as shirt sponsor, on TV throughout Europe would have given them a foothold. And so on and so on...

Imagine he'd spent the £10m's on adverts for his bank like any normal business. He could have had classy ads in every paper and on every TV channel for months. To suggest the money he sp**ked all over Hearts was to promote his banking aspirations is, quite frankly sir, lunacy.

Pete
21-06-2013, 01:13 AM
The minute hearts went into administration they became cheats IMO and their victories under Romanov became worthless.

They'll be known as cheats for ever more, or until the day the are liquidated.

Holmesdale Hibs
21-06-2013, 06:53 AM
I don't think Romanov was as close to succeeding as some are giving him credit for. Even if he hadn't have sacked Burley, they wouldn't have won the league and don't have the resources to compete with the old firm long term unless Romanov was willing to spend lots of his own money. If they had have qualified for the champions league it would have just been kicking the can down the road. They were always destined to be another Leeds or Portsmouth.

What Romanov did was reckless and if STF took the same approach I'd have been said the same thing. Not sure if its cheating or not but that comes down to the technicalities of SPL and financial law. Regardless, his approach came to a predictable end and its exactly what he deserved.

blackpoolhibs
21-06-2013, 07:06 AM
It is.

It's irresponsible, but legal.

Who would you blame, though? The borrower or the lender?

Was Vlad not both? :confused: Personally when everything comes out, i feel we will see they have cheated.

There will be fraud and corruption all through the whole Vlad empire, but we will have to wait for that to be confirmed.

greenpaper55
21-06-2013, 07:11 AM
That says nothing to me about any criminal aspect to the investment in Hearts.

From one of the earlier links regarding dodgy goings on with UKIO

"Members of the management and supervisory boards are also responsible for the bank’s activities,” the official said.Jucevičius said that the pre-trial investigation will likely take time.“The process is not going to be short. It’s not some ordinary private limited company. It’s a bank. We’ll have to make requests for legal assistance to more than one foreign state. The investigation into the bank Snoras has shown that it does take time before answers to such requests come,” he said. "

I wonder if one of the " foreign states " is the UK ?. So it seems there might have been cheating going on and also raises the question of how there can be a quick sale of the cheats empire ?.

PapillonVert
21-06-2013, 07:38 AM
Cheating who though?

Romanov converted a big chunk of that overspending into equity. Presumably if his businesses hadn't started to toil he would have written off even more.

To me it's not cheating unless you can establish that they broke a rule, or at least the spirit of a rule. Signing Beattie did that for me. There's also a slightly tenuous argument that they've traded while insolvent for some time to avoid relegation. The rub is that by doing that they have hampered their prospects of coming through insolvency successfully, because a big chunk of their 13/14 ST money is already gone.

There was never any previous "rule" in sport that players and athletes couldn't take drugs to enhance performance, but clearly that is cheating. The rules against doping were brought in ex post facto but there was always a general acknowledgment that such behaviour was cheating and unfair.

"Cheating" is a moral rather than (or as well as) a regulatory concept. If what you do gives you an unfair advantage against those you are competing with, it's cheating whether or not there is a specific rule against cheating.

You should not need to put in an explicit written rule "Thou shalt not cheat" anywhere as most reasonable people would consider the notion of a basic concept of fairness as a natural and presumed part of our dealings with others to be self-evident and not in need of an express written provision.

Keith_M
21-06-2013, 07:44 AM
I also prefer the term Financial Doping.

As CWG so rightly says, we cannot (yet) say anything illegal has been done.

However, let's wait to see what comes out in the wash before we fully decide. If Vlad did indeed accept cash from Money Laundering, defraud ordinary savers/pensioners, steal from Aluminium Workers pension funds, etc, then I think we can all revise our viewpoints.


Keep in mind that Vlad (Hearts) have been overspending by borrowing money from a bank controlled by Vlad (UKIO) where it looks like the money was not his and he did not care too much about losing said money as a result. They outbid other clubs for players as a result of this 'questionable' practice, thereby creating a non-level playing field. The fact that there were no specific rules about this in the SFA/SPL statute book is, IMHO, irrelevant.

Part/Time Supporter
21-06-2013, 07:50 AM
There was never any previous "rule" in sport that players and athletes couldn't take drugs to enhance performance, but clearly that is cheating. The rules against doping were brought in ex post facto but there was always a general acknowledgment that such behaviour was cheating and unfair.

"Cheating" is a moral rather than (or as well as) a regulatory concept. If what you do gives you an unfair advantage against those you are competing with, it's cheating whether or not there is a specific rule against cheating.

You should not need to put in an explicit written rule "Thou shalt not cheat" anywhere as most reasonable people would consider the notion of a basic concept of fairness as a natural and presumed part of our dealings with others to be self-evident and not in need of an express written provision.

It's not just that there weren't rules against it, the whole setup of the game almost encourages clubs to overspend. This is because the potential rewards for overspending sometimes outweight the costs of failure. The biggest single reason why Romanov's overspending failed wasn't his own mismanagement, it was the sheer gap between Rantic and other Scottish clubs. Even with the additional spending, Hearts' budget was still a fraction of either OF club. And without beating the OF consistently, they couldn't get into the Champions League (never mind winning it!).

I think it's a lazy type of thinking to dismiss what has happened at HMFC in recent years decades by calling it "cheating". Some folk seem to think that simply spending over what a club would naturally be able to afford with its turnover is cheating. But then folk refuse to accept that it is cheating if Hibs do that. Then there is the argument that it is only cheating if the additional source of funds is somehow illicitly obtained. But surely that is a matter for the criminal authorities in the relevant jurisdiction, rather than Scottish football.

HibeeMG
21-06-2013, 07:56 AM
One question: if it isn't cheating, then why do clubs who go into administration get given a punishment?

You would have thought that they would have deserved sympathy instead of further problems being heaped on them by the authorities.

The reason for the punishment is because those clubs in administration have been gaining an advantage over the more responsible clubs in the league. It is the authorities way of trying to redress that balance.

Obviously in Hearts' case, a 15 point deduction doesn't make up for the years of gaining an advantage by financial doping but it's the only avenue available to the authorities (at the moment!).

Sudds_1
21-06-2013, 07:57 AM
Its cheating pure and simple.

Spending money you do not have, cannot afford to borrow and have no intentions of paying back in order to improve the performance of a football club and win cups and league placings ahead of those who are operating on a manageable budget is no different to an athlete artificially improving their performance beyond their normal limits and those of their rivals in order to win medals or competitions.

Have a look at Lance Armstrong to see how cheats should be treated........in fact scrub that because at least he has had the decency to admit he was a cheat and at least show some remorse for what he has done, Hearts continue to trot out the "wouldn't change a thing" line despite watching honest, hard-working people being put out of a job in a difficult economic climate because of the cheating methods, actively and purposefully, engaged in by the hearts owners and board over the last 8 years.

The fans were warned, the evidence was there yet they turned a blind eye and celebrated their ill-gotten gains while rubbing it in the noses of us and the rest of scottish football. They are up to their smegging armpits in this river of s***e that is currently washing them away and i have zero sympathy for them, they are just as bad and as much to blame as Romanov and his cronies and they deserve every kick they are receiving on the way back down.

****** them.

couldn't have put it better myself! 10/10!

Treadstone
21-06-2013, 08:59 AM
It's not just that there weren't rules against it, the whole setup of the game almost encourages clubs to overspend. This is because the potential rewards for overspending sometimes outweight the costs of failure. The biggest single reason why Romanov's overspending failed wasn't his own mismanagement, it was the sheer gap between Rantic and other Scottish clubs. Even with the additional spending, Hearts' budget was still a fraction of either OF club. And without beating the OF consistently, they couldn't get into the Champions League (never mind winning it!).


Exactly. Demonstrated here in a lengthy but entertaining read from 'Swiss Ramble'.

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Hearts


One of the toughest issues for Hearts is their hefty wage bill. At £9.1 million, it is the third highest in Scotland, but to a certain extent is in “no man’s land”, as it is a lot lower than Celtic (£36.5 million) and Rangers (£28.1 million), but is twice as much as their main opposition: Hibernian £4.8 million, Aberdeen £4.6 million, Kilmarnock £4 million, Dundee United £4 million and Motherwell £3.4 million.

The dilemma is whether to try to hang on to the coat tails of the Big Two in an attempt to meet Romanov’s aspirations, when doing so leads to an unsustainable wages to turnover ratio. It looks like this was their strategy in the first part of Romanov’s reign, when the wage bill exploded from £4.5 million to £12.5 million, but since then the taps have been turned off, as the wage bill has been cut three years in a row, though it is still more than double the amount before his arrival, partly due to Hearts having one of the largest squads in the SPL.

LeighLoyal
21-06-2013, 09:43 AM
Maybe Petrie should buy the 2012 Scottish Cup from BDO for a few grand and call it his own. After all, Sevco bought Rangers Cups and called it their own and somehow got away it. Corruption works all ways.

Franck Stanton
21-06-2013, 10:17 AM
Okay, let's turn the argument upside down.

What if Tom Farmer was to have a brain wave tomorrow and suddenly decided to spend the whole of his personal wealth on Hibs over the next 10 years.

Would everyone here be arguing against it because it would be "cheating"?

No - but then again he would be spending his own money, money he has, not like in the yams case, money that didn't really belong to them/didn't have/was owed to the taxman. BIG difference.

JimBHibees
21-06-2013, 10:19 AM
Ask St Mirren if they consider it cheating when they were in for Craig Beattie also who then although he wasnt being paid correctly proceeded to knock them out of the cup. I'll bet the League cup win was particularly sweet for that reason.

PapillonVert
21-06-2013, 11:44 AM
It's not just that there weren't rules against it, the whole setup of the game almost encourages clubs to overspend. This is because the potential rewards for overspending sometimes outweight the costs of failure. The biggest single reason why Romanov's overspending failed wasn't his own mismanagement, it was the sheer gap between Rantic and other Scottish clubs. Even with the additional spending, Hearts' budget was still a fraction of either OF club. And without beating the OF consistently, they couldn't get into the Champions League (never mind winning it!).

I think it's a lazy type of thinking to dismiss what has happened at HMFC in recent years decades by calling it "cheating". Some folk seem to think that simply spending over what a club would naturally be able to afford with its turnover is cheating. But then folk refuse to accept that it is cheating if Hibs do that. Then there is the argument that it is only cheating if the additional source of funds is somehow illicitly obtained. But surely that is a matter for the criminal authorities in the relevant jurisdiction, rather than Scottish football.

I think the situation at HMFC involves a bit more than simple overspending. By way of example, deducting PAYE and NI contributions but not paying them over to HMRC, avoiding VAT and corporation tax liabilities, failing to pay creditors when due, failing to pay Council tax, failing to pay police bills, promoting a share issue under false pretences, siphoning off the season ticket money (intended to pay next season's costs) in a desperate attempt to stave off administration before the end of the last season which would have meant relegation, signing players (Danny Wilson) in the full knowledge that you don't have the money to pay the wages but telling that person that you do, failing to live by proper budgeting and financial planning norms. And I am sure that others can provide even more egregious examples of the type of behaviour we mean.

So, just a tad more involved in this particular case than mere "overspending", I would suggest.

And. quantum meruit, accusing other posters of being "lazy" in their contributions, just because you don't agree with what they say, is a cheap shot and unhelpful.

Geo_1875
21-06-2013, 11:59 AM
They were caught cheating by HMRC to the tune of £1m+ and admitted it by settling the claim. If they had been forced to sign "lesser" players at lower wages, which they could afford, they may not have performed to the artificially high level which effectively cheated other teams out of higher league positions and the associated prize money. That's the definition of cheating as far as I'm concerned.

Part/Time Supporter
21-06-2013, 12:16 PM
And. quantum meruit, accusing other posters of being "lazy" in their contributions, just because you don't agree with what they say, is a cheap shot and unhelpful.

What I mean by lazy thinking is that people use this (very strong) word casually, when there is little or no consensus as to what it means in this context.

clerriehibs
21-06-2013, 02:04 PM
I think the situation at HMFC involves a bit more than simple overspending. By way of example, deducting PAYE and NI contributions but not paying them over to HMRC, avoiding VAT and corporation tax liabilities, failing to pay creditors when due, failing to pay Council tax, failing to pay police bills, promoting a share issue under false pretences, siphoning off the season ticket money (intended to pay next season's costs) in a desperate attempt to stave off administration before the end of the last season which would have meant relegation, signing players (Danny Wilson) in the full knowledge that you don't have the money to pay the wages but telling that person that you do, failing to live by proper budgeting and financial planning norms. And I am sure that others can provide even more egregious examples of the type of behaviour we mean.

So, just a tad more involved in this particular case than mere "overspending", I would suggest.

And. quantum meruit, accusing other posters of being "lazy" in their contributions, just because you don't agree with what they say, is a cheap shot and unhelpful.

what he said; they cheated.

I don't think there's any laws with the word cheated in them. It's very subjective, so not as strong as, say, fraudulent.

But they (the previous owners) will be found out to have been fraudulent in lithuania, and thwy were most definitely cheating here?

Hoq much debt for equity, valuing homfc at HOW much?!?!?

NaturalOrder
21-06-2013, 02:37 PM
Take the cup off them give it to us. :)

21.05.2016
21-06-2013, 02:42 PM
Of course its cheating. They have spent millions and millions of pounds that they don't have in order to outbid other clubs and aquire a team of players they couldn't afford in order to gain an unfair advantage over other teams whilst everyone else had to play with a fair budget they could afford.

Cheats pure and simple and I hope their comeuppance is extremely painful.

CropleyWasGod
21-06-2013, 02:49 PM
They were caught cheating by HMRC to the tune of £1m+ and admitted it by settling the claim. If they had been forced to sign "lesser" players at lower wages, which they could afford, they may not have performed to the artificially high level which effectively cheated other teams out of higher league positions and the associated prize money. That's the definition of cheating as far as I'm concerned.

Again, the C word.

HMRC and Hearts didn't disclose the reason for, or the nature, of the investigation. Therefore we don't know the facts of the case, other than (according to Hearts) it was to do with overseas players.

In my experience, the majority of settlements in HMRC investigations come about as the result of incompetence or ignorance on the part of the taxpayer. Relatively few come about because of wilful fraud. Indeed, it's common for those who set out to defraud the Revenue to be prosecuted. Hearts weren't.

Spike Mandela
21-06-2013, 04:05 PM
If you were bidding for a house you really wanted but were out bid by another buyer (as we were for several players in the Romanov era) only for that buyer not to be able to keep up the mortgage payments a few months later and then have the house repossessed, they wouldn't have done anything illegal but would you feel cheated.

CropleyWasGod
21-06-2013, 04:06 PM
If you were bidding for a house you really wanted but were out bid by another buyer (as we were for several players in the Romanov era) only for that buyer not to be able to keep up the mortgage payments a few months later and then have the house repossessed, they wouldn't have done anything illegal but would you feel cheated.

Not if I got the house from the lender at a knock-down price :greengrin

PapillonVert
21-06-2013, 04:21 PM
What I mean by lazy thinking is that people use this (very strong) word casually, when there is little or no consensus as to what it means in this context.

OK, PTS, thanks for clearing that up. :thumbsup:

Spike Mandela
21-06-2013, 04:23 PM
Not if I got the house from the lender at a knock-down price :greengrin

You've already moved on and bought another lesser player......erm I mean house.:greengrin

Onion
21-06-2013, 05:09 PM
I'm very uncomfortable with this talk of cheating. The one situation where they sailed too close to the wind IMO was signing in Beattie in 2012 when they were struggling to pay the staff they already had. There weren't any rules in place about that at the time and they were subsequently changed because of that situation. The general "cheating" complaint of spending 100%+ of turnover on wages can be laid at so many other clubs to the point where it isn't really a valid complaint at all.

Of course it is cheating :rolleyes: There is nothing wrong with having an owner who pumps money into a club and them spending well in excess of their turnover if that what they want to do with their money. However, as soon as that person or company goes bust and they have in effect shored up the club with money they do not have - it is CHEATING. Thats the situation you have at Hearts and they should be severely punished for that. Financial doping or cheating it is using other people's money = cheating.

ancient hibee
21-06-2013, 06:05 PM
All fans encourage their club to overspend.How often do we read on here that Hibs won't get a player if we're ONLY willing to offer him £1500 a week.I often think I don't know too many people earning seventy five grand a year(maybe I don't move in the right circles of course).Look at Pars fans giving Masterton pelters-if it hadn't been for him getting the bank to lend him about £15 million they'd have shut down years ago.

greenginger
21-06-2013, 06:39 PM
Again, the C word.

HMRC and Hearts didn't disclose the reason for, or the nature, of the investigation. Therefore we don't know the facts of the case, other than (according to Hearts) it was to do with overseas players.

In my experience, the majority of settlements in HMRC investigations come about as the result of incompetence or ignorance on the part of the taxpayer. Relatively few come about because of wilful fraud. Indeed, it's common for those who set out to defraud the Revenue to be prosecuted. Hearts weren't.


They agreed to pay HMRC £1.5 million because of their misunderstanding of the tax laws. The Revenue agree a deal to be paid the money in installments starting in May.

The pay one lousy £ 40,000 installment then dive behind an Administrators skirt for protection and thats the last revenue will see of our tax money from the Yams.

I'll happily call it CHEATING to any Yams face. :greengrin

PapillonVert
21-06-2013, 09:30 PM
what he said; they cheated.

I don't think there's any laws with the word cheated in them. It's very subjective, so not as strong as, say, fraudulent.

But they (the previous owners) will be found out to have been fraudulent in lithuania, and thwy were most definitely cheating here?

Hoq much debt for equity, valuing homfc at HOW much?!?!?

He? what makes you think I am a "he"?:greengrin

I ain't BTW. :thumbsup:

Hibs Class
21-06-2013, 09:48 PM
I'm satisfied it's cheating. I see some of the points re previous seasons, for example when Burley was in charge and I take that as a grey area. But looking from the start of Romanov's involvement to it's recent end, I don't see how anyone could characterise it as anything other tan deceitful, dishonest, cheating (&, most likely, fraudulent and thus criminal).

thebakerboy
22-06-2013, 08:53 PM
If Hearts fans stopped that stupid sign and apologised for cheating to win 2 cups would we feel we could support them in keeping their club alive? Personally I do not wish them to die , because who could we have some banter with , certainly not the ugly sisters 'cause that is no fun. The only thing that annoys me greatly in this situation with my many good friends of that persuasion is that they they still refuse to acknowledge it was all done on an unlevel playing field and they were cheating for maybe 20 years going back even to the Robinson years where we have been trying to live within our means since then and it now shows in the current positions of the clubs. Some of these friends backed the anti Mercer campaign and I did respect them then BUT if only they would show some humility now. HUMILITY FROM JAMBOS is now needed to repair our relationship with them. This is just a ramble from someone who has been going to ER since 1951 and times are different now.

Saorsa
22-06-2013, 08:56 PM
If Hearts fans stopped that stupid sign and apologised for cheating to win 2 cups would we feel we could support them in keeping their club alive? Personally I do not wish them to die , because who could we have some banter with , certainly not the ugly sisters 'cause that is no fun. The only thing that annoys me greatly in this situation with my many good friends of that persuasion is that they they still refuse to acknowledge it was all done on an unlevel playing field and they were cheating for maybe 20 years going back even to the Robinson years where we have been trying to live within our means since then and it now shows in the current positions of the clubs. Some of these friends backed the anti Mercer campaign and I did respect them then BUT if only they would show some humility now. HUMILITY FROM JAMBOS is now needed to repair our relationship with them. This is just a ramble from someone who has been going to ER since 1951 and times are different now.Nah, they can get tae ****, sooner that grubby little club disappears the better. They're getting exactly what they deserve.

Waxy
22-06-2013, 08:59 PM
If we had beat them 5-1 would we be doing five one signs everyday?

ronaldo7
22-06-2013, 09:02 PM
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that shower of **** to apologise.

PapillonVert
22-06-2013, 09:04 PM
If Hearts fans stopped that stupid sign and apologised for cheating to win 2 cups would we feel we could support them in keeping their club alive? Personally I do not wish them to die , because who could we have some banter with , certainly not the ugly sisters 'cause that is no fun. The only thing that annoys me greatly in this situation with my many good friends of that persuasion is that they they still refuse to acknowledge it was all done on an unlevel playing field and they were cheating for maybe 20 years going back even to the Robinson years where we have been trying to live within our means since then and it now shows in the current positions of the clubs. Some of these friends backed the anti Mercer campaign and I did respect them then BUT if only they would show some humility now. HUMILITY FROM JAMBOS is now needed to repair our relationship with them. This is just a ramble from someone who has been going to ER since 1951 and times are different now.

For me, there would need to some acknowledgment of the unfairness that their extravagance has led to.

Now, I do not want us to be awarded the 2012 cup, hell, they can have it, but I want an acknowledgment that that cup final was unfair and we were not on a level playing field.

Oh, and for all the years before that when they were using players they couldn't afford, yes, I would like an acknowledgement of the unfairness of that and an apology for what they have cost other teams.

Just brushing the whole thing off is not on the agenda for me.

The Falcon
22-06-2013, 09:10 PM
They agreed to pay HMRC £1.5 million because of their misunderstanding of the tax laws. The Revenue agree a deal to be paid the money in installments starting in May.



Misunderstood them to Hearts financial benefit, spookily enough.

bighairyfaeleith
22-06-2013, 09:25 PM
For me, there would need to some acknowledgment of the unfairness that their extravagance has led to.

Now, I do not want us to be awarded the 2012 cup, hell, they can have it, but I want an acknowledgment that that cup final was unfair and we were not on a level playing field.

Oh, and for all the years before that when they were using players they couldn't afford, yes, I would like an acknowledgement of the unfairness of that and an apology for what they have cost other teams.

Just brushing the whole thing off is not on the agenda for me.

I agree, they have cheated. Hearts fans knew they where spending pounds they didn't have, it's been obvious for years but they chose to not contest it, in fact they bathed in the glory(only thing they bathed in, smelly bstards), so they are culpable for there club going under. If they want my help then they must acknowledge the cheating and then I will offer my assistance.

Only way that club can be saved is if Edinburgh unites to make it happen, until they repent that won't happen.

clerriehibs
22-06-2013, 10:01 PM
They cheated.

They know it.

I want them gone; they're poison.

Sir David Gray
22-06-2013, 10:13 PM
Don't care if they apologise or not. They have no intention of doing that anyway as a lot of them see their current predicament as being worth it to have beaten us last year in the cup final.

I'm not sure any Hearts fan even knows the meaning of the word "humility".

I hope they rot.

:giruy:

Kato
22-06-2013, 11:23 PM
I don't expect or want any contrition from their fan-base, that would just be even more cringey than how they behave now and it's unrealistic to expect them to apologise in some manner.

What I would like is for the press in this country to spell it out to them exactly what has happened at their club - which is financial doping.

Once/if ever Romanov is brought to book for the "workings" at his bank I also expect the press to be all over that story too.

Somehow though what I think will really happen is "massive support/feel sorry for the Hearts fans/great historic club" bullshinery from now until the end of the story.

Frankly if any of them do feel contrite they can stick it where their pants get crumpled.

The Falcon
23-06-2013, 06:57 AM
I will be surprised if we dont have a Rangers type outcome as there appears to be a lot of people now stating that they will help Hearts. Politicians involvement will mean that a derisory offer will be accepted under the guise of keeping the club going and the UK taxpayer, Lithuanian taxpayer and independent business' will take a bath.

CropleyWasGod
23-06-2013, 08:21 AM
I will be surprised if we dont have a Rangers type outcome as there appears to be a lot of people now stating that they will help Hearts. Politicians involvement will mean that a derisory offer will be accepted under the guise of keeping the club going and the UK taxpayer, Lithuanian taxpayer and independent business' will take a bath.

Accepted by whom?

The Falcon
23-06-2013, 09:14 AM
Accepted by whom?

Accepted in the same way that £1.5m was accepted for Rangers properties, which those that purchased had revalued a matter of weeks later at £40m. In the last accounts the properties were valued at over £112m, in accounts that were signed off as "true and fair".

CropleyWasGod
23-06-2013, 09:26 AM
Accepted in the same way that £1.5m was accepted for Rangers properties, which those that purchased had revalued a matter of weeks later at £40m. In the last accounts the properties were valued at over £112m, in accounts that were signed off as "true and fair".

As has been said many times, the situations are completely different.

Accepted by whom?

The Falcon
23-06-2013, 09:46 AM
As has been said many times, the situations are completely different.

Accepted by whom?

It is my opinion that the outcome will probably be the same. A team calling itself Hearts will be playing at Tynecastle in the Scottish Leagues next season, the only dubiety is what league they might be in.

It will be accepted, in my opinion, by those responsible for sorting out the mess, either Lithuanian or UK administrators.

I am sure the defence of what has happened at Sevco was that it was the administrators primary duty to move the company on as a going concern.

Steve-O
23-06-2013, 09:56 AM
Most clubs were at or near 100% during the post-Sky contract period (2002/03).

Yeah, because they were still tied into contracts signed during the Sky period when we had more income. Hardly the same thing.

JeMeSouviens
23-06-2013, 10:28 AM
Now, I do not want us to be awarded the 2012 cup

Arguably, all the teams they squeezed past on the way to the final have a better claim than us. I think whoever we played on that day would've beaten us, including Auchinleck.

Kaiser1962
23-06-2013, 10:29 AM
Yeah, because they were still tied into contracts signed during the Sky period when we had more income. Hardly the same thing.

In 2002-2003 the only clubs at or over 100% were Dundee United at 106% and Killie at 100%. Next was Hearts at 85% with Celtic lowest at 54%. Hibs were at 73%.

Season before that saw Motherwell at 107% followed by Hearts at 93% then United at 88%. Celtic lowest again at 58% and Hibs were 78%.

In 2000-2001 it was Motherwell again at 109% followed by United at 95% then Hearts at 91%. Celtic still lowest at 62% and Hibs spent 75% of their £7.6m income on wages for that season.

Eyrie
23-06-2013, 10:55 AM
It is my opinion that the outcome will probably be the same. A team calling itself Hearts will be playing at Tynecastle in the Scottish Leagues next season, the only dubiety is what league they might be in.

It will be accepted, in my opinion, by those responsible for sorting out the mess, either Lithuanian or UK administrators.

I am sure the defence of what has happened at Sevco was that it was the administrators primary duty to move the company on as a going concern.

The key difference is that there were no securities to be satisfied before any payout to Huns RIP creditors.

The PBS is pledged to Ukio Bankas for £6.8m plus interest and charges, so it can't be sold for less than open market value. Any attempt at a cosy stitch up will fall foul of the Lithuanian liquidators of the bank who have a legal duty to recover as much money as possible for the Lithuanian taxpayers.

If the PBS site is worth £8m and someone tries to get it for £4m there is nothing to stop the UB liquidators making an offer equivalent to the secured debt which BDO would have to accept as this would be by far the highest bid. This would cost them nothing as no cash would change hands and, as long as the bank can then sell the site for more than the lowball offer, it would be better off by taking possession, selling the land to the highest bidder and keeping all the proceeds.

The only potential flaw is that a housebuilder or supermarket wouldn't pay full value without the planning permission being in place, so the bank's liquidators would have to wait for their money and indeed be confident that a change of use for the site would be granted. On that second point, can anyone remember if Cala got as far as outline permission for housing when they did their deal with the Pieman?

The Falcon
23-06-2013, 03:40 PM
The key difference is that there were no securities to be satisfied before any payout to Huns RIP creditors.

The PBS is pledged to Ukio Bankas for £6.8m plus interest and charges, so it can't be sold for less than open market value. Any attempt at a cosy stitch up will fall foul of the Lithuanian liquidators of the bank who have a legal duty to recover as much money as possible for the Lithuanian taxpayers.

If the PBS site is worth £8m and someone tries to get it for £4m there is nothing to stop the UB liquidators making an offer equivalent to the secured debt which BDO would have to accept as this would be by far the highest bid. This would cost them nothing as no cash would change hands and, as long as the bank can then sell the site for more than the lowball offer, it would be better off by taking possession, selling the land to the highest bidder and keeping all the proceeds.

The only potential flaw is that a housebuilder or supermarket wouldn't pay full value without the planning permission being in place, so the bank's liquidators would have to wait for their money and indeed be confident that a change of use for the site would be granted. On that second point, can anyone remember if Cala got as far as outline permission for housing when they did their deal with the Pieman?

I recall that, during the Sevco shambles, that the first objective of a company administrator is to save the company as a going concern, which resulted in the individual elements being sold collectively rather than broken up although it could be argued, given the results of the prompt revaluation of the properties, that this would have been beneficial to the creditors.

There is also nothing to stop the UKIO liquidators accepting the £4m as it may be felt that is as good as it is going to get.

We can speculate all we want on here, it is a forum after all, but we wont know for sure until the fat lady sings. Lets hope she can hold a tune.