Hands On Hibs - No Substance. Unhelpful Voice

[Tyler Durden]

Nah, she pointedly mentions support of the holding company several times as well as noting we got external funding.

There's nothing to support your guesswork as opposed to some clear statements on the debt and arrangements which supports the holding company paying it off.

There's actually nothing in the public domain to support either position definitively. Not your knowledge of banking either, which obviously doesn't extend to the only bank who matter in this scenario.

I don't see this poster criticising STF either, just outlining a scenario.

Anyway, hopefully HoH will get back in their box now. But given that's unlikely, hopefully fewer people will give them any attention. I'm not sure who they believe they represent anyway.

[Jonnyboy]

I take it that's aimed at me. Not once did I mention confrontation. So you can forget that. It's far easier to speak face to face. Like the majority of Hibs fans I speak to in real life manage without hiding behind made up names on a forum.

With all due respect Kano, aren't you doing that very thing yourself? Unless of course you are Kano and if so, my apologies :wink:

[blackpoolhibs]

The good thing about this thread is at least it has shifted the 140 year anniversary thread down the board.

I'm in Manchester at a queen concert, will bump it back up when I get back.

[Pretty Boy]

I'm in Manchester at a queen concert, will bump it back up when I get back.

Remember and leave before the encore to beat the traffic.

[hibees 7062]

With all due respect Kano, aren't you doing that very thing yourself? Unless of course you are Kano and if so, my apologies :wink:

Navy Blue jacket, green scarf and handsome. Defo not Kano

[Just Alf]

Laughing at a club for scrutinising its owners and paying its debts? We already knew they were shameless hypocrites, so no news here..

Laughing at this thread because "we're" arguing amongst ourselves... The bit in bold is what I said that shut them up :agree:


Who cares


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not you

[grunt]

Remember and leave before the encore to beat the traffic.

Haha!

[Andy74]

There's actually nothing in the public domain to support either position definitively. Not your knowledge of banking either, which obviously doesn't extend to the only bank who matter in this scenario.

I don't see this poster criticising STF either, just outlining a scenario.

Anyway, hopefully HoH will get back in their box now. But given that's unlikely, hopefully fewer people will give them any attention. I'm not sure who they believe they represent anyway.

There is though. Talk of direct payments to the bank previously. Support from holding company. External funding. Holding company debt totaling £9.5 m. The fact we are very different from the clubs where deals have been done with banks. I've seen not one thing that points to any deal with the bank other than paying all or the vast majority of what they were due.

[BSEJVT]

Its just pointless nit picking

By his own admission Lurkio likes the rest of the deal but is concerned that the amount of money paid out by STF and RP to reduce the debt isn't the full £4.5m.

Quite honestly I don't give a toss if its anywhere in the region between 1p and £4.5m

The fact is the overall debt has reduced

The second fact is that they are giving away 47% of their shareholding, minority interests such as me hold the other 2% :-), valued at somewhere around £10m for nothing.

Even if it is closer to the 1p element, which having worked for BOS for 30 odd years until 2013, I seriously doubt, the other improvements themselves demonstrate their intent.

At best they are getting greater credit for their personal financial input to the debt reduction than they maybe deserve, so what?

Nit picking over the monies written of or repaid or whatever is just a pointless attempt by some parties to remain relevant to the changed situation.

Hearing some of the continued bile directed to STF & RP is pretty scary, it reminds you that there are folk out there who wont let you forget any error you have ever made and will hound you to the end of the earth to ensure they feel they have exacted retribution.

It would do some involved the world of good to get a bit of perspective on the situation and their actions

Its divisive, disrespectful and frankly embarrassing.

[Lurkio]

Its just pointless nit picking

By his own admission Lurkio likes the rest of the deal but is concerned that the amount of money paid out by STF and RP to reduce the debt isn't the full £4.5m.

Quite honestly I don't give a toss if its anywhere in the region between 1p and £4.5m

The fact is the overall debt has reduced


I don't think it is nit picking. It is simply an attempt to understand the sequence of transactions that has achieved the end result of an extremely welcome reduction in debt for the club, but also to see through the spin that is being put out by the Board about the generosity of the holding company.

I've been looking at the Kilmarnock deal involving the Bank and Billy Bowie. Killie was arguably in a worse position that Hibs. The main elements of their deal to clear the debt was firstly that the Park Hotel would be sold off (achieved £2.4M) to reduce the bank debt, a director's loan of £885k was also written off by Jamie Moffat, leaving £6.4M bank debt which was assigned to Billy Bowie. How much did he pay for it? I've been unable to find the exact amount involved, but it has been reported as up to £2M, which would again put it in line with the 30% deals achieved by Dundee Utd and Aberdeen.

I can't see any situation whereby STF would pay a greater proportion of the debt than any of the other clubs. Hence my view that he bought the £6.3M bank debt for something in the region of £2M and added it to the £3M already due to the holding company.

Having bought the bank debt, the write off of £4.5M is only symbolic as he didn't actually put up that money himself. There is nothing untoward or illegal in doing that, but the spin that has come from the Board is that this is hard cash that is being written off by the holding company, and will be turned into shares as a DFE swap.

For me it's all about trust, and I don't get a warm feeling from how that part of the deal is being presented.

I seem to recall reading recently that Lloyds has classed all the former BoS football debts as being "impaired". That effectively means that they don't think they will get all their money back and will do deals to rid themselves of the debt, get some cash in, and help their balance sheet in the short to medium term.

Buying bad/impaired debt has always been an accepted business practice. A company may sell a debt to a debt collector for a fraction of the amount due. If the debt collector (baseball bat in hand) can collect a larger fraction then they are in profit. Banks, credit card companies, utilities, catalogue companies all use debt collectors, some more scrupulous than others.

Edit: also check this post from a few weeks back:
http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?295497-AGM-28th-January-STF-Reportedly-Reducing-Club-Debt&p=4244914&viewfull=1#post4244914

[Eyrie]

Buying bad/impaired debt has always been an accepted business practice. A company may sell a debt to a debt collector for a fraction of the amount due. If the debt collector (baseball bat in hand) can collect a larger fraction then they are in profit. Banks, credit card companies, utilities, catalogue companies all use debt collectors, some more scrupulous than others.

I suppose it depends on just how impaired you regard the Hibs debt as having been.

Given that we owned our fit-for-purpose stadium and training facility, and the debts were underwritten by one of Scotland's wealthiest men, I'd suggest that the level of impairment was very low and we would only receive a small discount for immediate payment.

[Andy74]

I don't think it is nit picking. It is simply an attempt to understand the sequence of transactions that has achieved the end result of an extremely welcome reduction in debt for the club, but also to see through the spin that is being put out by the Board about the generosity of the holding company.

I've been looking at the Kilmarnock deal involving the Bank and Billy Bowie. Killie was arguably in a worse position that Hibs. The main elements of their deal to clear the debt was firstly that the Park Hotel would be sold off (achieved £2.4M) to reduce the bank debt, a director's loan of £885k was also written off by Jamie Moffat, leaving £6.4M bank debt which was assigned to Billy Bowie. How much did he pay for it? I've been unable to find the exact amount involved, but it has been reported as up to £2M, which would again put it in line with the 30% deals achieved by Dundee Utd and Aberdeen.

I can't see any situation whereby STF would pay a greater proportion of the debt than any of the other clubs. Hence my view that he bought the £6.3M bank debt for something in the region of £2M and added it to the £3M already due to the holding company.

Having bought the bank debt, the write off of £4.5M is only symbolic as he didn't actually put up that money himself. There is nothing untoward or illegal in doing that, but the spin that has come from the Board is that this is hard cash that is being written off by the holding company, and will be turned into shares as a DFE swap.

For me it's all about trust, and I don't get a warm feeling from how that part of the deal is being presented.

I seem to recall reading recently that Lloyds has classed all the former BoS football debts as being "impaired". That effectively means that they don't think they will get all their money back and will do deals to rid themselves of the debt, get some cash in, and help their balance sheet in the short to medium term.

Buying bad/impaired debt has always been an accepted business practice. A company may sell a debt to a debt collector for a fraction of the amount due. If the debt collector (baseball bat in hand) can collect a larger fraction then they are in profit. Banks, credit card companies, utilities, catalogue companies all use debt collectors, some more scrupulous than others.

Big difference in that Killie almost couldn't trade.

The info suggests that your assertions are wrong on this. It's a pity that probably a significant gesture is being seen as spin on little more than speculation and examples that aren't comparable.

Leeann almost spells out the detail to the extent she can.

[Lurkio]

Big difference in that Killie almost couldn't trade.

The info suggests that your assertions are wrong on this. It's a pity that probably a significant gesture is being seen as spin on little more than speculation and examples that aren't comparable.

Leeann almost spells out the detail to the extent she can.

If you want to quote Leeann, then I'm happy to do so.

"The Club was already in the process of talking to the Bank to reduce its debt. I knew if we were successful in achieving this, and freeing ourselves from the burden of Bank debt, then it would put us in a strong position for the future. Other clubs had previously done this notably by accessing, as we eventually did, external funding"

What really makes Hibs any different? Is it that we are well run and paying our bills on time that we don't want a discount on our debt? Nonsense, of course the Board will take whatever opportunities present themselves to put the club on a better financial footing.

Here is a quote from Michael Johnston when commenting on the Killie deal:
".... Now almost nine years later, with the crucial financial support of Billy Bowie and the generous debt forgiveness of Jamie Moffat, my long term objective of rendering the Company debt free has been achieved. Over this period, all employees of the company have been paid in full and on time and all taxes have been paid to HMRC"

That sounds like a familiar sentiment.

Kilmarnock - Billy Bowie
Dundee Utd - unnamed individual fans
Aberdeen - Willie and Elaine Donald
Hibs - STF

[lEXO]

I've answered plenty questions on here. Majority of them completely pointless. Navy Blue jacket, green scarf and handsome. What would you need to ask though? You seem to know everything about HOH' from the finer details of the food bank to how many members. If you would like to speak to me no problem be better speaking to HOH directly as it's a group not just me. let me know, I can arrange it. Just send the twitter account your name and when it suits, I'll make sure it happens. I've not got anymore time to sit on here so send me a message or contact HOH twitter and you can ask a thousand questions if you like, face to face.

You are a prime example why people don't take HOH seriously. You don't answer valid questions when asked, spout nonsense and cant handle being questioned. I follow HOH through Facebook and anyone who dares to challenge their views gets binned or accused of being an "agent". If you or them cant put up, then shut up. And the meet me at the match face to face stuff is cringeworthy and could be seen as an attempt to intimidate. Why cant you answer the questions on here? Why cant you get the answers and post them? You can "make sure it happens" for a meeting but wont make the effort to get answers to relevant questions. Hypocrite is the word that comes to mind.

[Iain G]

I can't see any situation whereby STF would pay a greater proportion of the debt than any of the other clubs. Hence my view that he bought the £6.3M bank debt for something in the region of £2M and added it to the £3M already due to the holding company.

Having bought the bank debt, the write off of £4.5M is only symbolic as he didn't actually put up that money himself. There is nothing untoward or illegal in doing that, but the spin that has come from the Board is that this is hard cash that is being written off by the holding company, and will be turned into shares as a DFE swap.



Hang on, he has paid out around 2m in cash to the bank to pay off our mortgages, out of his own pocket. That 2m is a loan due payable to the holding company as part of the total 5m we think, but at a likely more beneficial rate and conditions to the club and with considerable less risk attached to it as it is not secured against Easter Road as teh bank debt (mortgages) had been. Also as the mortgage debt has dropped from 6.3 to 2m our repayments are clearly gonna be less and leave more money in the club coffers to invest in the football side of the business instead of servicing the debt.

IF STF had not paid off the bank debt we would be in a worse situation and paying the bank cold hard cash is clearly not "only symbolic".

How is this, in any way, a bad situation? :confused:

[Lurkio]

Hang on, he has paid out around 2m in cash to the bank to pay off our mortgages, out of his own pocket. That 2m is a loan due payable to the holding company as part of the total 5m we think, but at a likely more beneficial rate and conditions to the club and with considerable less risk attached to it as it is not secured against Easter Road as teh bank debt (mortgages) had been. Also as the mortgage debt has dropped from 6.3 to 2m our repayments are clearly gonna be less and leave more money in the club coffers to invest in the football side of the business instead of servicing the debt.

IF STF had not paid off the bank debt we would be in a worse situation and paying the bank cold hard cash is clearly not "only symbolic".

How is this, in any way, a bad situation? :confused:

Bad situation? Read the whole of my post, e.g. "an extremely welcome reduction in debt for the club"

Note that there is no £2M left payable to the bank as a mortgage. The bank debt has already gone and the securities with it, based on documents lodged with Companies House.

Paying the bank £2M in hard cash is most definitely not symbolic, however claiming to have written off £4.5M in hard cash would misrepresent actuality.

Be aware of the interest rate that we were paying the bank. You can work it out from the accounts. It was 2% (or base rate + 1.5%). If STF's £5M mortgage matches that, far less betters that, I will be delighted. I don't know if that loan will be secured or not, but isn't at the moment.

[Ozyhibby]

Do you really trust Petrie? They got us in 17 million pound debt, pre car park sale. They got us in 9 million debt pre bank deal, all this with being a complete failure on the park. Am sitting on the fence here. I like the idea of fan ownership but I dont trust Petrie to run a football club.

Just say we rack up 10 millions pounds worth of debt over the next 10 years (history suggests it will happen) then how do we get out of it?

My perfect scenario would be to pay Petrie off using the 2.5 million working capital. Surely 500k would see it ok? That way I trust Dempster has the right resources to get on with the job and we can bring in a neutral chairman.

We don't need any money to pay of Petrie, just buy the shares and vote him off the board.

[Ozyhibby]

HoH are an irrelevance. There has never been any substance to any of their claims. Their infantile tactics are deserving of the contempt they appear to be held in by the majority of the support.
BuyHibs are harder to work out, I liked their original proposal even if their delivery was pretty poor. It appears that the club did too, as the HSL scheme seems to be a carbon copy, with the added bonus of individual fans being able to purchase shares. They really should be getting behind the new scheme.
Both recent press releases by HoH and BuyHibs have not raised any specific objections as far as I can see, in fact they look almost like childish tantrums.
I expect BuyHibs to disappear altogether shortly, HoH will be with us a bit longer as that level of attention seeking will always be there.

[Just Alf]

HoH are an irrelevance. There has never been any substance to any of their claims. Their infantile tactics are deserving of the contempt they appear to be held in by the majority of the support.
BuyHibs are harder to work out, I liked their original proposal even if their delivery was pretty poor. It appears that the club did too, as the HSL scheme seems to be a carbon copy, with the added bonus of individual fans being able to purchase shares. They really should be getting behind the new scheme.
Both recent press releases by HoH and BuyHibs have not raised any specific objections as far as I can see, in fact they look almost like childish tantrums.
I expect BuyHibs to disappear altogether shortly, HoH will be with us a bit longer as that level of attention seeking will always be there.

Nailed it :agree:

:top marks

[Kato]

I thought the share offer might unify the fans and in the main it seems to have done that with a few exceptions. If there are questions that need to be asked by some or all it seems to me that they should be asked in a civil manner without the need for all the vitriol that's currently being poured. I'm still not sure what questions are being asked though or if any questions are being at all, if they are being asked they're not being articulated very well.

In other words, "What's the beef?"

[Nomeancity]

I might have missed them doing it already but can someone from hoh please come out with something constructive (and realistic ) about what they would do. Just seems to be that they pick holes in everything else and come up with nothing constructive.
im all for healthy debate and challenging the status quo ( and look what happens when you don't do this - yams and Huns) but it's easy to say everyone else is wrong, it's not so easy to come up with an alternative.

[Bad Martini]

I fear I may need a Mekon like brain to keep up with some logic spouted here...

Sooooooooo, if I am right, the issue is now:

1) We are ALL (almost?) happy with the outcome of reduced debts and liabilities and interest rates and all that good stuff BUT.........
2) We dont like how we got there/who done it/their claims and seeking credit for good work?


....the Mekon brain has just exploded into smitherines, quoting "radgeness....my brain has blown to bits through radgeeeeeenesssssssss"

:greengrin

[s.a.m]

David Low sticking his oar in. I had hoped he'd gone away:

Simon Pia ‏@SimonPia1 22m22 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/SimonPia1/status/558247586931679232) “@Heavidor (https://twitter.com/Heavidor): Hibernian FC - Statement by David Low http://wp.me/p2VPkU-1n (http://t.co/IjswhBEC9Y) via @wordpressdotcom (https://twitter.com/wordpressdotcom)” - v interesting for HIBBIES & fitba media

[green day]

Pia is a radge from way back.

David Low, is that the tube Celtic fan that tried to buy The Rangers?

Oh well, haud me back while I soak up their opinions !

[Weststandwanab]

And his statement is http://t.co/IjswhBEC9Y (http://t.co/IjswhBEC9Y)

Going to get interesting now !

[jacomo]

David Low sticking his oar in. I had hoped he'd gone away:

Simon Pia ‏@SimonPia1 22m22 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/SimonPia1/status/558247586931679232) “@Heavidor (https://twitter.com/Heavidor): Hibernian FC - Statement by David Low http://wp.me/p2VPkU-1n (http://t.co/IjswhBEC9Y) via @wordpressdotcom (https://twitter.com/wordpressdotcom)” - v interesting for HIBBIES & fitba media

It is interesting in terms of how much Hibs is worth, and whether or not the share issue is fairly valued.

David Low does miss a fairly vital point though, which is that proceeds from this issue are going into the club rather than to pay off an existing owner.

I would have thought more details about the out sourcing of the retail operation will come out at the AGM.

[CB_NO3]

We don't need any money to pay of Petrie, just buy the shares and vote him off the board.
He still has a share in the holding company.

[CropleyWasGod]

He still has a share in the holding company.

I don't think people will care whether that's the case or not. For most, it's just a matter of getting him off the Board of the club.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't think people will care whether that's the case or not. For most, it's just a matter of getting him off the Board of the club.

I agree. I don't mind him being a shareholder of the club. He just needs to leave the board of the club. It's the correct thing to do after the mess he has got us in.

[Tom Hart RIP]

Statement on behalf of Mike Riley, chair of Hibernian Supporters Association


HIBS FANS CHAIR OPPOSES CLUB'S NEW SHARE DEAL


A HIBS fans boss came out today against the club's new share-buying scheme after two Hibs supporters groups had already rejected the proposals earlier this week.

Mike Riley, chair of the Hibs Supporters Association, the official body of the supporters clubs which represents over 18 branches, criticised Sir Tom Farmer and Rod Petrie's plan to raise up to £2.5m from the fans to buy a 51 per shareholding and the lack of transparency over details of the debt owed to the majority shareholder, reportedly £5m, and how it would be paid back.

Riley said:

"This is not community ownership. The proposals are basically calling on fans to make a donation to the multi-millionaire club owner.

"Despite plans for a new company Hibernian Supporters Limited, the fans will still not own the club or be running it. Overall control will remain with the majority shareholder and the current board.

"So far I've only heard from branches who are against it, but there may be others who might not agree. Therefore we will be calling a meeting for all branches of the Hibs Supporters Association to discuss it after the club's AGM next week.

"I, myself, would advise fans not to put money in but I have made it clear these are my personal views as chairman. We are studying the club accounts and would like more information on the majority shareholder's debt or loan and how and why he wants a reported figure of £5m paid back."

On January 20th two separate fans groups, Hands on Hibs and BuyHibs, both urged fans to opt out and criticised the club's lack of transparency over the debt issue.

[Iain G]

And his statement is http://t.co/IjswhBEC9Y (http://t.co/IjswhBEC9Y)

Going to get interesting now !

Who exactly is this man and why is he demanding this that and the other or even bothering to comment on this? Ya bid was rejected and you clearly state you wont be making another bid, so why comment other than ego and vanity and self importance?

[Iain G]

MEDIA RELEASE ....MEDIA RELEASE ....MEDIA RELEASE ....MEDIA RELEASE ....

Thursday 22 January 2015

Statement on behalf of Mike Riley, chair of Hibernian Supporters Association


HIBS FANS CHAIR OPPOSES CLUB'S NEW SHARE DEAL


A HIBS fans boss came out today against the club's new share-buying scheme after two Hibs supporters groups had already rejected the proposals earlier this week.

Mike Riley, chair of the Hibs Supporters Association, the official body of the supporters clubs which represents over 18 branches, criticised Sir Tom Farmer and Rod Petrie's plan to raise up to £2.5m from the fans to buy a 51 per shareholding and the lack of transparency over details of the debt owed to the majority shareholder, reportedly £5m, and how it would be paid back.

Riley said:

"This is not community ownership. The proposals are basically calling on fans to make a donation to the multi-millionaire club owner.

"Despite plans for a new company Hibernian Supporters Limited, the fans will still not own the club or be running it. Overall control will remain with the majority shareholder and the current board.

"So far I've only heard from branches who are against it, but there may be others who might not agree. Therefore we will be calling a meeting for all branches of the Hibs Supporters Association to discuss it after the club's AGM next week.

"I, myself, would advise fans not to put money in but I have made it clear these are my personal views as chairman. We are studying the club accounts and would like more information on the majority shareholder's debt or loan and how and why he wants a reported figure of £5m paid back."

On January 20th two separate fans groups, Hands on Hibs and BuyHibs, both urged fans to opt out and criticised the club's lack of transparency over the debt issue.

Is this guy not up for one of the fan positions on the board?!?

[marinello59]

MEDIA RELEASE ....MEDIA RELEASE ....MEDIA RELEASE ....MEDIA RELEASE ....

Thursday 22 January 2015

Statement on behalf of Mike Riley, chair of Hibernian Supporters Association


HIBS FANS CHAIR OPPOSES CLUB'S NEW SHARE DEAL


A HIBS fans boss came out today against the club's new share-buying scheme after two Hibs supporters groups had already rejected the proposals earlier this week.

Mike Riley, chair of the Hibs Supporters Association, the official body of the supporters clubs which represents over 18 branches, criticised Sir Tom Farmer and Rod Petrie's plan to raise up to £2.5m from the fans to buy a 51 per shareholding and the lack of transparency over details of the debt owed to the majority shareholder, reportedly £5m, and how it would be paid back.

Riley said:

"This is not community ownership. The proposals are basically calling on fans to make a donation to the multi-millionaire club owner.

"Despite plans for a new company Hibernian Supporters Limited, the fans will still not own the club or be running it. Overall control will remain with the majority shareholder and the current board.

"So far I've only heard from branches who are against it, but there may be others who might not agree. Therefore we will be calling a meeting for all branches of the Hibs Supporters Association to discuss it after the club's AGM next week.

"I, myself, would advise fans not to put money in but I have made it clear these are my personal views as chairman. We are studying the club accounts and would like more information on the majority shareholder's debt or loan and how and why he wants a reported figure of £5m paid back."

On January 20th two separate fans groups, Hands on Hibs and BuyHibs, both urged fans to opt out and criticised the club's lack of transparency over the debt issue.

Wow. That's quite a responsibility to take on, talking for every member of the supporters branches. I hope he has their support. This is quite simply destructive behaviour.

[CropleyWasGod]

Wow. That's quite a responsibility to take on, talking for every member of the supporters branches. I hope he has their support. This is quite simply destructive behaviour.

IMO, he's also sailing close to the wind with this statement ""I, myself, would advise fans not to put money in".

Giving advice, no?:cb

[JimBHibees]

Riley's statement. This bit is incredible, would it not make sense to discuss it with your members before mouthing off.

"So far I've only heard from branches who are against it, but there may be others who might not agree. Therefore we will be calling a meeting for all branches of the Hibs Supporters Association to discuss it after the club's AGM next week.

These statements are absolutely unbelievable in terms of shooting ourselves in the foot IMO. Too many self important clowns.

[Lago]

MEDIA RELEASE ....MEDIA RELEASE ....MEDIA RELEASE ....MEDIA RELEASE ....

Thursday 22 January 2015

Statement on behalf of Mike Riley, chair of Hibernian Supporters Association


HIBS FANS CHAIR OPPOSES CLUB'S NEW SHARE DEAL


A HIBS fans boss came out today against the club's new share-buying scheme after two Hibs supporters groups had already rejected the proposals earlier this week.

Mike Riley, chair of the Hibs Supporters Association, the official body of the supporters clubs which represents over 18 branches, criticised Sir Tom Farmer and Rod Petrie's plan to raise up to £2.5m from the fans to buy a 51 per shareholding and the lack of transparency over details of the debt owed to the majority shareholder, reportedly £5m, and how it would be paid back.

Riley said:

"This is not community ownership. The proposals are basically calling on fans to make a donation to the multi-millionaire club owner.

"Despite plans for a new company Hibernian Supporters Limited, the fans will still not own the club or be running it. Overall control will remain with the majority shareholder and the current board.

"So far I've only heard from branches who are against it, but there may be others who might not agree. Therefore we will be calling a meeting for all branches of the Hibs Supporters Association to discuss it after the club's AGM next week.

"I, myself, would advise fans not to put money in but I have made it clear these are my personal views as chairman. We are studying the club accounts and would like more information on the majority shareholder's debt or loan and how and why he wants a reported figure of £5m paid back."

On January 20th two separate fans groups, Hands on Hibs and BuyHibs, both urged fans to opt out and criticised the club's lack of transparency over the debt issue.
Jackie McN just came out telling Hibs fans to get behind the HSL plan, and this self appointed dumpling decides he wants to get himself in the spot light. Unbelievable.

[marinello59]

Riley's statement. This bit is incredible, would it not make sense to discuss if with your members before mouthing off.

"So far I've only heard from branches who are against it, but there may be others who might not agree. Therefore we will be calling a meeting for all branches of the Hibs Supporters Association to discuss it after the club's AGM next week.

These statements are absolutely unbelievable in terms of shooting ourselves in the foot IMO. Too many self important clowns.

Maybe Simon Pia should just come out and declare himself as the official spokesperson for all three groups as it would appear that he is co-ordinating things here.

[kano]

MEDIA RELEASE ....MEDIA RELEASE ....MEDIA RELEASE ....MEDIA RELEASE ....

Thursday 22 January 2015

Statement on behalf of Mike Riley, chair of Hibernian Supporters Association


HIBS FANS CHAIR OPPOSES CLUB'S NEW SHARE DEAL


A HIBS fans boss came out today against the club's new share-buying scheme after two Hibs supporters groups had already rejected the proposals earlier this week.

Mike Riley, chair of the Hibs Supporters Association, the official body of the supporters clubs which represents over 18 branches, criticised Sir Tom Farmer and Rod Petrie's plan to raise up to £2.5m from the fans to buy a 51 per shareholding and the lack of transparency over details of the debt owed to the majority shareholder, reportedly £5m, and how it would be paid back.

Riley said:

"This is not community ownership. The proposals are basically calling on fans to make a donation to the multi-millionaire club owner.

"Despite plans for a new company Hibernian Supporters Limited, the fans will still not own the club or be running it. Overall control will remain with the majority shareholder and the current board.

"So far I've only heard from branches who are against it, but there may be others who might not agree. Therefore we will be calling a meeting for all branches of the Hibs Supporters Association to discuss it after the club's AGM next week.

"I, myself, would advise fans not to put money in but I have made it clear these are my personal views as chairman. We are studying the club accounts and would like more information on the majority shareholder's debt or loan and how and why he wants a reported figure of £5m paid back."

On January 20th two separate fans groups, Hands on Hibs and BuyHibs, both urged fans to opt out and criticised the club's lack of transparency over the debt issue.


So now the chairman of the supporters association speaks out against it. Funny that I was told on here yesterday 99% of Hibs fans supported it. I take it Mike won't be welcome at Easter Road and won't be the chairman of a 'real' supporters group now just like I was told about HOH yesterday.

That's three different supporters statements all against Farmer/Petries shakedown. As I asked yesterday is there any supporters group come out and backed Farmer yet?

[CropleyWasGod]

So now the chairman of the supporters association speaks out against it. Funny that I was told on here yesterday 99% of Hibs fans supported it. I take it Mike won't be welcome at Easter Road and won't be the chairman of a 'real' supporters group now just like I was told about HOH yesterday.

That's three different supporters statements all against Farmer/Petries shakedown. As I asked yesterday is there any supporters group come out and backed Farmer yet?

Why does it have to be mob-rule?

Can you not accept that some people are capable of independent thought, and that, on the basis of the evidence out there, are able to come to their own conclusion?

Can you explain what you mean by "shake-down"?

[Lago]

The more I read the more angry I get. It would seem that irrespective of what he does STF can do no right in the eyes of a significant number of Hibs fans, you have to wonder when he might just say stuff this and walk away from all things Hibs.

[SunshineOnLeith]

Has any HOH representative ever either explained why they think lies (as in, assertions of fact which are provable as obviously false) are an appropriate tactic for a lobby group to use?

Alternatively, have they ever apologised for lying?

Seeing kano's found his way back to his keyboard, let's gie this a wee bump.

[marinello59]

David Low sticking his oar in. I had hoped he'd gone away:

Simon Pia ‏@SimonPia1 22m22 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/SimonPia1/status/558247586931679232) “@Heavidor (https://twitter.com/Heavidor): Hibernian FC - Statement by David Low http://wp.me/p2VPkU-1n (http://t.co/IjswhBEC9Y) via @wordpressdotcom (https://twitter.com/wordpressdotcom)” - v interesting for HIBBIES & fitba media

Maybe a journalist with an agenda contacted him and suggested he say something.

[Pete]

So now the chairman of the supporters association speaks out against it. Funny that I was told on here yesterday 99% of Hibs fans supported it. I take it Mike won't be welcome at Easter Road and won't be the chairman of a 'real' supporters group now just like I was told about HOH yesterday.

That's three different supporters statements all against Farmer/Petries shakedown. As I asked yesterday is there any supporters group come out and backed Farmer yet?

You're all part of the same, destructive movement as far as I'm concerned. Your ridiculous phrases give you away.

People who love the sound of their own voice.

[kano]

Yesterday it was a handful of troublemakers and attention seekers, now it's 'Mob rule'

[Pretty Boy]

Wow. That's quite a responsibility to take on, talking for every member of the supporters branches. I hope he has their support. This is quite simply destructive behaviour.

Utterly mental thing to do.

I really hope the various branches have been consulted and thought this through as that's a hell of an alienating statement by the chairman.

[jacomo]

So now the chairman of the supporters association speaks out against it. Funny that I was told on here yesterday 99% of Hibs fans supported it. I take it Mike won't be welcome at Easter Road and won't be the chairman of a 'real' supporters group now just like I was told about HOH yesterday.

That's three different supporters statements all against Farmer/Petries shakedown. As I asked yesterday is there any supporters group come out and backed Farmer yet?

There's been some people getting carried away on here the past couple of days, and I see you've been engaging with one poster and then having others firing questions at you, which can be hard to deal with.

Healthy scepticism is welcome, as far as I am concerned. The club have proposed this scheme and set up HSL, and have a responsibility to explain why they have gone down this road. Hibs fans are being asked to put their own money into this, and are entitled to ask questions.

However - I am disappointed by Mike Riley's comments and I think he has got the wrong end of the stick. LD's statement last night went a long way to answering a lot of doubts, and I am sure the AGM will answer more.

By the way, the AGM looks like being a big deal now, as Hibs try and get this scheme off the ground in the face of some opposition. A couple of weeks ago I suggested that the AGM should be delayed until after the transfer window closed, to avoid any possible distraction from the over-riding priority this season - giving us the best possible chance of getting promoted. I was widely mocked and belittled for this view... but I still have concerns!

[jacomo]

Maybe a journalist with an agenda contacted him and suggested he say something.

Simon Pia's (digital) finger prints all over it. I don't know his agenda, but it seems to be personal between him and STF.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yesterday it was a handful of troublemakers and attention seekers, now it's 'Mob rule'

And today, like yesterday, it's questions which have gone unanswered.

[Weststandwanab]

Who exactly is this man and why is he demanding this that and the other or even bothering to comment on this? Ya bid was rejected and you clearly state you wont be making another bid, so why comment other than ego and vanity and self importance?

I am sorry I have no idea and cannot answer that


IMO, he's also sailing close to the wind with this statement ""I, myself, would advise fans not to put money in".

Giving advice, no?:cb

I agree with that but it could only be considered advice if someone takes it !


Jackie McN just came out telling Hibs fans to get behind the HSL plan, and this self appointed dumpling decides he wants to get himself in the spot light. Unbelievable.

Somebody must have anointed him sorry appointed !


Maybe Simon Pia should just come out and declare himself as the official spokesperson for all three groups as it would appear that he is co-ordinating things here.

At least it would give him something to so although that would involve making a decision



The more I read the more angry I get. It would seem that irrespective of what he does STF can do no right in the eyes of a significant number of Hibs fans, you have to wonder when he might just say stuff this and walk away from all things Hibs.

I am almost convinced if Sir Tom gave the club to the Supporters for nothing there would still be criticism.

[DarlingtonHibee]

Wow. That's quite a responsibility to take on, talking for every member of the supporters branches. I hope he has their support. This is quite simply destructive behaviour.

I dont know the guy, but I'll stick with the Hibs board, and these comments are not helpful at all.

I find it amazing what people will do for 15 minutes of fame, I would suggest it's a coordinated response with the other two mobs.

In my personal opinion, a journalist is stirring this, and getting his pals to publish.

[JimBHibees]

You do have to ask yourself how long will it be before this petty infighting and downright obnoxious behaviour will start to scunner talented people like Dempster and Stubbs. Really dont get it at all.

[Barney McGrew]

Riley's statement. This bit is incredible, would it not make sense to discuss it with your members before mouthing off

Indeed. In his position within the HSA, he'd have been far better to say he hadn't discussed it with all the branches yet, and that they'd make a statement once they had. IMO of course.

Instead, his personal opinion will be blurred with what the HSA 'official' stance is.

All these statements by various parties over the last couple of days smacks of 'look at me, I'm important in all this'. Would they not all have been better to wait until the AGM when there will be plenty opportunity to ask questions before making an informed decision rather than lots of conjecture in the meantime?

[ACLeith]

..... an informed decision ..... ?
Now there's a novel idea :rolleyes:

[kaimendhibs]

Said it before but here goes again. Mike Riley does not speak for me

[blackpoolhibs]

Said it before but here goes again. Mike Riley does not speak for me

Mans an arse, in the privileged position he's in he constantly gives his opinion not the views of the people he represents.

Needs voted off now.

[Iain G]

So now the chairman of the supporters association speaks out against it. Funny that I was told on here yesterday 99% of Hibs fans supported it. I take it Mike won't be welcome at Easter Road and won't be the chairman of a 'real' supporters group now just like I was told about HOH yesterday.

That's three different supporters statements all against Farmer/Petries shakedown. As I asked yesterday is there any supporters group come out and backed Farmer yet?

Me and that bloke who lives down the road and a guy round the corner think its a good idea, there you go, balanced your three supporters statements out in one fell swoop! :greengrin

I think most folks, going by the reaction on here, would suggest your small collective (which I assume is HoH!?) and Buy Hibs are hardly a full representation of the Hibernian support, given that you are coming from a highly biased position on anything to do with the ownership of the club, shall we just call you the "We Hate Tom Farmer Club", would that be easier?

I hope Mr Reilly has consulted far and wide with his membership before opening his mouth to the press today or he may have some fun conversations over the next few days...

[Mikey]

Maybe Simon Pia should just come out and declare himself as the official spokesperson for all three groups as it would appear that he is co-ordinating things here.

Pia wrote it.

[DarlingtonHibee]

Pia wrote it.

no doubt planning a stunt at the AGM :rolleyes:

[Barney McGrew]

no doubt planning a stunt at the AGM :rolleyes:

He'll let others do it. He'll just report on it.

Impartially of course.

[California-Hibs]

Mike Reilly is a bleeping so and so, a man who simply doesn't have a clue. He in no way shape or form speaks for me! Get this man away from the club, he's been poison for years now!

[DarlingtonHibee]

Mike Reilly is a bleeping so and so, a man who simply doesn't have a clue. He in no way shape or form speaks for me! Get this man away from the club, he's been poison for years now!

Not clever enough to do a poll, but when the two new board members are appointed should they make clear on their views on HOH and BuyHibs, or is that unfair :dunno:

[lucky]

I've defend Mike in the past but surely he should have waited till after the HSA had met to discuss it before going public. I feel his position as Chair of the HSA is untenable unless he gets full backing from the branches. His job is to speak on behalf of the HSA not dictate policy or opinion

[Brizo]

Mike Reilly is a bleeping so and so, a man who simply doesn't have a clue. He in no way shape or form speaks for me! Get this man away from the club, he's been poison for years now!

Mike Riley should stick with what he does best, booking cabarets and organising beer deliveries. When it comes to anything else he is way out of his depth as is shown every time his inarticulate havering slavering coupon gets in front of a camera or microphone.

I would suggest that Mike Riley, like so many others, has his own agenda here. In his case id suggest its more to do with petty Hibs Club politics than the good of the HSA membership and wider Hibs support.

[Golden Bear]

I've defend Mike in the past but surely he should have waited till after the HSA had met to discuss it before going public. I feel his position as Chair of the HSA is untenable unless he gets full backing from the branches. His job is to speak on behalf of the HSA not dictate policy or opinion

:agree:

That's the way I see it. I don't know the guy but he's either not thought this through or he's already tested the water and is confident that his personal views are representative of the HSA as a whole. Either way he shouldn't have said what he did at this stage.

[DarlingtonHibee]

Mike Riley should stick with what he does best, booking cabarets and organising beer deliveries. When it comes to anything else he is way out of his depth as is shown every time his inarticulate havering slavering coupon gets in front of a camera or microphone.

I would suggest that Mike Riley, like so many others, has his own agenda here. In his case id suggest its more to do with petty Hibs Club politics than the good of the HSA membership and wider Hibs support.

Fairly obvious that he has been led, and greatly encouraged to do on the basis it "is best for the club" - not a great distance between the Hibs club and another pub on Easter Road.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Denny Hibees are fir the board proposal and do not feel it is a scam by STF & LD. I Lucius Apuleius, nominated spokesman of the Denny Hibees says so.Please note other branches of Hibees in Denny are available.

[Bostonhibby]

Mike Reilly is a bleeping so and so, a man who simply doesn't have a clue. He in no way shape or form speaks for me! Get this man away from the club, he's been poison for years now!

:agree: I and quite a few other members of HSA clubs that I know think the same way. Cannae really speak for us when our view hasn't been canvassed. Can speak for himself and should make it clear that's what he is doing, no problem then.

[green day]

HOH/BuyHibs/Kano/Pia etc

Can any of you articulate (look it up) what it is you expect to happen?

I mean, I understand you want Petrie and Farmer to walk away, but give me some practical steps?


Who becomes our chair? Is it Brad or Simon (who has taught me, by the way - mans a self important arse)?

Do we get rid of Leanne Dempster (who to me looks like she is doing a sterling job)

Do we dump Stubbs (cos hes no a hibby likes)?

Should we just have another year of total implosion?



Go on, let us know.

I seriously hark back to the days pre-internet, when you would just talk to your mates about something like this, decide if you were in or not, and not have to watch radges write total Lillian Gish on internet forums / twitter etc.

[Engels74]

HOH/BuyHibs/Kano/Pia etc

Can any of you articulate (look it up) what it is you expect to happen?

I mean, I understand you want Petrie and Farmer to walk away, but give me some practical steps?


Who becomes our chair? Is it Brad or Simon (who has taught me, by the way - mans a self important arse)?

Do we get rid of Leanne Dempster (who to me looks like she is doing a sterling job)

Do we dump Stubbs (cos hes no a hibby likes)?

Should we just have another year of total implosion?



Go on, let us know.

I seriously hark back to the days pre-internet, when you would just talk to your mates about something like this, decide if you were in or not, and not have to watch radges write total Lillian Gish on internet forums / twitter etc.

Well said

[Blaster]

:agree:

That's the way I see it. I don't know the guy but he's either not thought this through or he's already tested the water and is confident that his personal views are representative of the HSA as a whole. Either way he shouldn't have said what he did at this stage.

The same HSA who years ago refused East Lothian Hibs to be an associated member as we would not agree to visiting the club on a minimum number of occasions throughout the season. Is this still the same stance they take scoopyboy/brooster??

[marinello59]

So now the chairman of the supporters association speaks out against it. Funny that I was told on here yesterday 99% of Hibs fans supported it. I take it Mike won't be welcome at Easter Road and won't be the chairman of a 'real' supporters group now just like I was told about HOH yesterday.

That's three different supporters statements all against Farmer/Petries shakedown. As I asked yesterday is there any supporters group come out and backed Farmer yet?

An unnamed spokesperson for HoH has come out against it.
An unnamed spokesperson for BuyHibs has come out against it. The Chairman of BuyHibs has come out in favour.
Mike Riley has come out against it despite admitting he has no mandate to do so.
Fair play to Pia, he's making sure there is a lot of noise. There hasn't been much sense though.

[Matty_Jack04]

Some people can see the worst in any situation it beggars belief sometimes it really does, HoH is simply the most embarrassing 'supporter movement' in the history of football, over grown bairns desperately seeking attention, I still can't quite beleive mike Reilly is the HSA chairman the mans a grade A roaster.

The club is trying to move forward, the deal that's been struck with the bank is a good one, we have the chance to have a controlling stake in our club..it's everything we've been screaming for with the removal of the bank burden thrown in..let's stop the witch hunt antics and support the club it's there for us to change it

[s.a.m]

Denny Hibees are fir the board proposal and do not feel it is a scam by STF & LD. I Lucius Apuleius, nominated spokesman of the Denny Hibees says so.Please note other branches of Hibees in Denny are available.


:aok: Shandon Hib* says yes too. Associates and family of Shandon Hib also say yes. Perhaps Denny and Shandon Hibs could form a coalition of the willing?


* as with Denny Hibs, other Shandon branches may be available.

[Jonnyboy]

Statement on behalf of Mike Riley, chair of Hibernian Supporters Association


HIBS FANS CHAIR OPPOSES CLUB'S NEW SHARE DEAL


A HIBS fans boss came out today against the club's new share-buying scheme after two Hibs supporters groups had already rejected the proposals earlier this week.

Mike Riley, chair of the Hibs Supporters Association, the official body of the supporters clubs which represents over 18 branches, criticised Sir Tom Farmer and Rod Petrie's plan to raise up to £2.5m from the fans to buy a 51 per shareholding and the lack of transparency over details of the debt owed to the majority shareholder, reportedly £5m, and how it would be paid back.

Riley said:

"This is not community ownership. The proposals are basically calling on fans to make a donation to the multi-millionaire club owner.

"Despite plans for a new company Hibernian Supporters Limited, the fans will still not own the club or be running it. Overall control will remain with the majority shareholder and the current board.

"So far I've only heard from branches who are against it, but there may be others who might not agree. Therefore we will be calling a meeting for all branches of the Hibs Supporters Association to discuss it after the club's AGM next week.

"I, myself, would advise fans not to put money in but I have made it clear these are my personal views as chairman. We are studying the club accounts and would like more information on the majority shareholder's debt or loan and how and why he wants a reported figure of £5m paid back."

On January 20th two separate fans groups, Hands on Hibs and BuyHibs, both urged fans to opt out and criticised the club's lack of transparency over the debt issue.

If you're uttering them as Chairman they can't be construed as your personal views. You either say it without the handle or with.

[jonty]

If you're uttering them as Chairman they can't be construed as your personal views. You either say it without the handle or with.

Journalists simply aren't what they used to be :greengrin

[Lago]

The more I think about it I can only think that for some reason certain individuals are determined to destabilise Hibs, and if that happens they could well suceed in killing the club as we know it today.

[Benny Brazil]

I've defend Mike in the past but surely he should have waited till after the HSA had met to discuss it before going public. I feel his position as Chair of the HSA is untenable unless he gets full backing from the branches. His job is to speak on behalf of the HSA not dictate policy or opinion

Can I ask lucky - is he re-elected each year by the HSA members?
Not sure of the procedures or running of the HSA - but am suprised if he is elected each year that he has managed to survive this long without someone else challenging him.

[Beefster]

Imagine all these wallopers in charge of Hibs. **** me.

[Oscar T Grouch]

If you're uttering them as Chairman they can't be construed as your personal views. You either say it without the handle or with.

The statement should have read "these are my personal views and have nothing to do with my position as chairman". I don't know the man, but is he qualified to give advise on the purchase or none purchase of memberships of HSL? Are there not rules about that, either rules of the HSA or some financial rules?

[Heisenberg]

Any time HoH have come out with something my only reaction is to cringe like ****. The amount of utter bollocks they've come out with so far is staggering.

[Just Alf]

Any time HoH have come out with something my only reaction is to cringe like ****. The amount of utter bollocks they've come out with so far is staggering.

It's posts like this that really make me wish we had a "Like" function on dot net!

:aok:

[Kaiserclem]

I notice (via twitter) HOH have come out against the HSL initiative today. No real surprise, as to endorse it, complete disempowers them. What is troubling me more if the deeply negative and nasty nature of the tone of their communications.

They are basically implying now that this scheme is a scam. To me, this group, set up to be a group of activists to seek truth and justice for Hibs (my take on their original intent)...have embarrassed themselves through a whole suite of wild claims.. None of these have turned out to be true. In fact, the HSL proposal makes specific commitments on the future ownership of the ground and academy..

I am tired by their agenda now. It feels much more about their ego, than what is right for our football club. They need to think deeply about what they wanted to achieve, and assess it against what HSL is setting about to do...just because it's not their way, doesn't mean it won't create the right outcome...if they continue on this path of divisive communication, it will do nothing to create unity across Hibs fans...Stick to doing community good, such as the food bank collection (amazing achievement!), as your attempts to get involved in the ownership affairs of our clubs are far from helpful or constructive.

If any HOH activities wants to discuss this one to one feel free to PM me...as currently, I have no sense you are doing anything helpful for our club.


Absolutely spot on! HOH statements and posters are embarrassing to our club. No ideas themselves and it is just a group set up to fuel one man's ego and give him an excuse to try and get publicity. Idiotic, trouble causing and not Hibs fans in my opinion.

[kano]

Another attention seeker, nutter, trouble maker.. Or maybe it's Simon Pia writing this too. 🙈

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/record-fc-hibernian-clubs-new-5025470

[Jonnyboy]

Another attention seeker, nutter, trouble maker.. Or maybe it's Simon Pia writing this too. 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/record-fc-hibernian-clubs-new-5025470

He's got previous for spouting

[marinello59]

Another attention seeker, nutter, trouble maker.. Or maybe it's Simon Pia writing this too. 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/record-fc-hibernian-clubs-new-5025470

What's your point,? You do know this is just one fans opinion. It's not any more valid because the Daily Ranger has given him a platform.
I give you this, the coordination has been good but the lack of substance will soon catch up with you.

[marinello59]

He's got previous for spouting

He certainly has.

[Benny Brazil]

Another attention seeker, nutter, trouble maker.. Or maybe it's Simon Pia writing this too. 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/record-fc-hibernian-clubs-new-5025470

Maybe you want to answer some of the points raised on here rather than just highlighting INDIVIDUALS who are opposed to the proposal - it might just might give you more credibility.

[matty_f]

Another attention seeker, nutter, trouble maker.. Or maybe it's Simon Pia writing this too. 🙈

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/record-fc-hibernian-clubs-new-5025470

"A momentus decision" - it's £225 FFS!!!!

[Pete]

Another attention seeker, nutter, trouble maker.. Or maybe it's Simon Pia writing this too. 🙈

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/record-fc-hibernian-clubs-new-5025470

I'd say your first description was accurate.

[marinello59]

Maybe you want to answer some of the points raised on here rather than just highlighting INDIVIDUALS who are opposed to the proposal - it might just might give you more credibility.

He won't do that. Agitation is his game, not engaging in any sort of debate. He won't have any answers anyway.

[SunshineOnLeith]

Has any HOH representative ever either explained why they think lies (as in, assertions of fact which are provable as obviously false) are an appropriate tactic for a lobby group to use?

Alternatively, have they ever apologised for lying?

Hiya kano, hiya pal!

[Benny Brazil]

He won't do that. Agitation is his game, not engaging in any sort of debate. He won't have any answers anyway.

I realised that when I posted this - but am glass half full kinda guy :greengrin

[kano]

"A momentus decision" - it's £225 FFS!!!!


Nae bother money bags. £200 a lot of money where I come from. I'm sure that's the case for many other Hibs supporters.

[matty_f]

Nae bother money bags. £200 a lot of money where I come from. I'm sure that's the case for many other Hibs supporters.

Money bags :faf:


I think most folk would consider £200 spread across a year, as a less than momentus decision!

[Eyrie]

Nae bother money bags. £200 a lot of money where I come from. I'm sure that's the case for many other Hibs supporters.

So how low a threshold would you have set? Should people be allowed to buy £25 as a minimum?

For what it's worth, I think the minimum HSL donation should be £10 per month which would be far more affordable for the average fan.

[Peevemor]

I'm getting totally pissed off with all the rent-a-gobs picking fault with everything the club does.

The bottom line is that the fans can (and hopefully eventually will) buy 51% of the club for £2.5m. This includes a 20k capacity completed stadium in the club's historical heartland (not some soulless out of town pile of crap) as well as the training centre. David Low speaks about £10m (total share value + debt) as being an overvaluation - what f***ing planet is he living on?

Mike Riley objects to paying STF money. Erm... this'll be the money that isn't going to STF. Clown!

Folk are still bumping their gums about "Petrie". If you read LD's statement it's pretty clear that the opportunity we've been given is down to RP and his board who head hunted LD, obviously seeing her as the person to steer these plans through.

This is a time for hibees everywhere to unite and get behind the club. The future's in our hands. If you don't want to be part of that or can't find anything constructive to say, just do one!

That's all.

[marinello59]

Nae bother money bags. £200 a lot of money where I come from. I'm sure that's the case for many other Hibs supporters.

Any chance of you taking a break from sneering at the users of this site and gloating over Pia's media manipulation and actually engaging in debate. Several people have asked you questions which you simply ignore, any answers yet?
How about the name of HoH's independent financial adviser?

[DaveF]

Nae bother money bags. £200 a lot of money where I come from. I'm sure that's the case for many other Hibs supporters.

BuyHibs wanted between £10 and £50 a month of fans. Were you slagging that off too?

You'll probably spend £40 or more going to Dumfries so £225 a year is manageable if within reach for most if you wanted to do it.

[SunshineOnLeith]

Any chance of you taking a break from sneering at the users of this site and gloating over Pia's media manipulation and actually engaging in debate. Several people have asked you questions which you simply ignore, any answers yet?
How about the name of HoH's independent financial adviser?

That'll be him crawled back into his hole now until the next time a tabloid newspaper gives someone a platform to spout nonsense.

[Kaiserclem]

I'm getting totally pissed off with all the rent-a-gobs picking fault with everything the club does.

The bottom line is that the fans can (and hopefully eventually will) buy 51% of the club for £2.5m. This includes a 20k capacity completed stadium in the club's historical heartland (not some soulless out of town pile of crap) as well as the training centre. David Low speaks about £10m (total share value + debt) as being an overvaluation - what f***ing planet is he living on?

Mike Riley objects to paying STF money. Erm... this'll be the money that isn't going to STF. Clown!

Folk are still bumping their gums about "Petrie". If you read LD's statement it's pretty clear that the opportunity we've been given is down to RP and his board who head hunted LD, obviously seeing her as the person to steer these plans through.

This is a time for hibees everywhere to unite and get behind the club. The future's in our hands. If you don't want to be part of that or can't find anything constructive to say, just do one!

That's all.

could not agree more, we all cried out for change and we get it. But, hold on a minute we don't want change or a sign of things looking like they are heading in the right direction as it can't be right. Someone must be doing wrong in the background if it looks like we're changing how we run the club or improving. If u listen to HOH and doubters it must be RP wanting to pocket our cash. Honestly, absolute dribble. We all demanded change, we're getting it. FACT, we all demanded the club have fans ownership, we're getting it. What else do we all want? We are now bank debt free, what other scottish clubs are? Do they have the stadium and training ground we have? Absolute morons who support HOH or doubt where we're heading IMO. Clubs all,over the world would love to be where we are financially just now with the assets we have and we're not happy. Come on people, fans? Yes but United? no. Absolutely embarrassing. LD is doing a terrific job.........I await the embarrassment egotistic publicity seeking HOH leader, or his clueless followers, response. I am sure they will have a better alternative. £2.5m cash for football injected into our club in the current economic climate in the scottish game, and to a championship club. Terrible eh lol

[kano]

BuyHibs wanted between £10 and £50 a month of fans. Were you slagging that off too?

You'll probably spend £40 or more going to Dumfries so £225 a year is manageable if within reach for most if you wanted to do it.


I think that's manageable for me. If I thought it was a fair deal. I wouldn't dream of telling people £200 wasn't a lot of money like the other poster did. That's what I was pointing out.

[grunt]

Another attention seeker, nutter, trouble maker.. Or maybe it's Simon Pia writing this too.
Ahh that would be Jamie Montgomery Hibs blogger in the Record.
Has he ever written anything positive about Hibs?

[Benny Brazil]

I think that's manageable for me. If I thought it was a fair deal. I wouldn't dream of telling people £200 wasn't a lot of money like the other poster did. That's what I was pointing out.

So whilst your here - why do you think it isnt a fair deal?

[DaveF]

I think that's manageable for me. If I thought it was a fair deal. I wouldn't dream of telling people £200 wasn't a lot of money like the other poster did. That's what I was pointing out.

Aye but the problem you have is that the poster didn't say that at all. I know you won't by try reading the post again.

[matty_f]

I think that's manageable for me. If I thought it was a fair deal. I wouldn't dream of telling people £200 wasn't a lot of money like the other poster did. That's what I was pointing out.

I said it wasn't momentus, there's a difference there. I wouldn't dream of claiming a £200 a year spend was momentus.

[hhibs]

The more I think about it I can only think that for some reason certain individuals are determined to destabilise Hibs, and if that happens they could well suceed in killing the club as we know it today.

I suppose the gross mismanagement of Rod Petrie and the various board members over the last few years would have nothing to do with any" killing " of the club?

[Seven Zero]

I'm getting totally pissed off with all the rent-a-gobs picking fault with everything the club does.

The bottom line is that the fans can (and hopefully eventually will) buy 51% of the club for £2.5m. This includes a 20k capacity completed stadium in the club's historical heartland (not some soulless out of town pile of crap) as well as the training centre. David Low speaks about £10m (total share value + debt) as being an overvaluation - what f***ing planet is he living on?

Mike Riley objects to paying STF money. Erm... this'll be the money that isn't going to STF. Clown!

Folk are still bumping their gums about "Petrie". If you read LD's statement it's pretty clear that the opportunity we've been given is down to RP and his board who head hunted LD, obviously seeing her as the person to steer these plans through.

This is a time for hibees everywhere to unite and get behind the club. The future's in our hands. If you don't want to be part of that or can't find anything constructive to say, just do one!

That's all.

This!

[DaveF]

I suppose the gross mismanagement of Rod Petrie and the various board members over the last few years would have nothing to do with any" killing " of the club?

I'm absolutely anti Petrie and stood at the rally in the summer shouting for him to go. But that's not going to stop me from probably (once I get and read the documentation) supporting this scheme as a way to help my club re-build.

Some people would appear to be looking for active ways to break this apart and then what?

[Phoenix]

David Low's not helping in this either !


https://heavidor.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/hibernian-fc-statement-by-david-low/

Hibernian FC – Statement by David Low
Posted on January 22, 2015
Since Hibernian FC (“Hibernian” or “the club”) published its report and accounts for the year to 31 July 2014 and announced its intention to issue new shares I have been approached by a large number of shareholders and supporters and asked to increase the offer my group made last year and to offer to buy all of the new shares Hibernian is proposing to issue.

I have considered the financial statements to 31 July 2014 and reviewed the Information Memorandum provided by the Board and my valuation of the club’s shares has not changed.

It remains my view that Hibernian’s assets remain overvalued at pre-recession and banking crisis levels. The bank debt has now been replaced by a new large debt to the controlling shareholder and these facts together with the poor financial performance of the business over many years mean Hibernian’s shares continue to have a negligible economic value. Consequently, my group will not be making a new offer, subscribing for new shares or making a donation.

If the controlling shareholder wishes to value its investment at £7.5m that is its prerogative and its decision has to be both respected and accepted as does my own valuation.

However, what is less acceptable is the Board’s deliberate decision to avoid providing thousands of existing and prospective shareholders and donors with any up to date financial information to help them make their own decision on the merits of an investment or a donation. It is not unreasonable to want to know what you are being asked to invest in or donate to. It is still not too late for the Board to provide that information as the share offer will remain open until 31 August 2015 (or such other date as the Board may decide).

The Board really should address the following issues:-

1.No financial information has been provided in respect of current trading. This is particularly relevant given the published accounts relate to when the club was in the Premier League. Given the club has subsequently been relegated the Board should immediately release a current trading update and publish six month figures to 31 January 2015 as soon as is practical. There are thousands of existing and prospective shareholders and donors who would like to know how the club’s doing.

2.The published accounts to 31 July 2014 casually announced the outsourcing of the club’s retail operation. Why was the business outsourced, who was it outsourced to and on what terms was it outsourced? There are thousands of existing and prospective shareholders and donors who would like to know.

3. The published accounts provide detailed information on the club’s loan arrangements with its bank. No information was been provided in respect of the new loan arrangements with the new lender. Who, exactly, is the loan is with, what are the loan terms and who now has security over the club’s assets. There are thousands of existing and prospective shareholders and donors who would like to know.

4.The club’s existing Articles of Association enable the Board to restrict and control who owns shares in the future. It is not unusual for shareholders’ personal circumstances to change thereby necessitating a sale of shares. There are thousands of existing and prospective shareholders and donors who would like to know why the Board has not referred to or addressed this matter.

It would be both constructive and helpful to all if these matters were addressed posthaste.

In my opinion, the most likely outcome of the share issue is that supporters will end up with a minority shareholding in the club. My group’s offer involved donating 25% of the issued shares to a supporters’ charitable body and I invite the controlling shareholder to now consider doing the same.

For the avoidance of doubt, these are my personal views and any supporter considering investing in Hibernian shares should seek the advice of a financial advisor authorised by the FCA.

Pax Vobi**** et Serva Fidem

David Low

22 January 2015

[marinello59]

David Low's not helping in this either !


https://heavidor.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/hibernian-fc-statement-by-david-low/

Hibernian FC – Statement by David Low
Posted on January 22, 2015
Since Hibernian FC (“Hibernian” or “the club”) published its report and accounts for the year to 31 July 2014 and announced its intention to issue new shares I have been approached by a large number of shareholders and supporters and asked to increase the offer my group made last year and to offer to buy all of the new shares Hibernian is proposing to issue.

I have considered the financial statements to 31 July 2014 and reviewed the Information Memorandum provided by the Board and my valuation of the club’s shares has not changed.

It remains my view that Hibernian’s assets remain overvalued at pre-recession and banking crisis levels. The bank debt has now been replaced by a new large debt to the controlling shareholder and these facts together with the poor financial performance of the business over many years mean Hibernian’s shares continue to have a negligible economic value. Consequently, my group will not be making a new offer, subscribing for new shares or making a donation.

If the controlling shareholder wishes to value its investment at £7.5m that is its prerogative and its decision has to be both respected and accepted as does my own valuation.

However, what is less acceptable is the Board’s deliberate decision to avoid providing thousands of existing and prospective shareholders and donors with any up to date financial information to help them make their own decision on the merits of an investment or a donation. It is not unreasonable to want to know what you are being asked to invest in or donate to. It is still not too late for the Board to provide that information as the share offer will remain open until 31 August 2015 (or such other date as the Board may decide).

The Board really should address the following issues:-

1.No financial information has been provided in respect of current trading. This is particularly relevant given the published accounts relate to when the club was in the Premier League. Given the club has subsequently been relegated the Board should immediately release a current trading update and publish six month figures to 31 January 2015 as soon as is practical. There are thousands of existing and prospective shareholders and donors who would like to know how the club’s doing.

2.The published accounts to 31 July 2014 casually announced the outsourcing of the club’s retail operation. Why was the business outsourced, who was it outsourced to and on what terms was it outsourced? There are thousands of existing and prospective shareholders and donors who would like to know.

3. The published accounts provide detailed information on the club’s loan arrangements with its bank. No information was been provided in respect of the new loan arrangements with the new lender. Who, exactly, is the loan is with, what are the loan terms and who now has security over the club’s assets. There are thousands of existing and prospective shareholders and donors who would like to know.

4.The club’s existing Articles of Association enable the Board to restrict and control who owns shares in the future. It is not unusual for shareholders’ personal circumstances to change thereby necessitating a sale of shares. There are thousands of existing and prospective shareholders and donors who would like to know why the Board has not referred to or addressed this matter.

It would be both constructive and helpful to all if these matters were addressed posthaste.

In my opinion, the most likely outcome of the share issue is that supporters will end up with a minority shareholding in the club. My group’s offer involved donating 25% of the issued shares to a supporters’ charitable body and I invite the controlling shareholder to now consider doing the same.

For the avoidance of doubt, these are my personal views and any supporter considering investing in Hibernian shares should seek the advice of a financial advisor authorised by the FCA.

Pax Vobi**** et Serva Fidem

David Low

22 January 2015

Ready posted on the other thread.
More of Pia's work. He's good isn't he?

[JimBHibees]

I'm getting totally pissed off with all the rent-a-gobs picking fault with everything the club does.

The bottom line is that the fans can (and hopefully eventually will) buy 51% of the club for £2.5m. This includes a 20k capacity completed stadium in the club's historical heartland (not some soulless out of town pile of crap) as well as the training centre. David Low speaks about £10m (total share value + debt) as being an overvaluation - what f***ing planet is he living on?

Mike Riley objects to paying STF money. Erm... this'll be the money that isn't going to STF. Clown!

Folk are still bumping their gums about "Petrie". If you read LD's statement it's pretty clear that the opportunity we've been given is down to RP and his board who head hunted LD, obviously seeing her as the person to steer these plans through.

This is a time for hibees everywhere to unite and get behind the club. The future's in our hands. If you don't want to be part of that or can't find anything constructive to say, just do one!

That's all.

Couldn't agree more.

[kano]

Aye but the problem you have is that the poster didn't say that at all. I know you won't by try reading the post again.


He said "it's not momentous it's £225 FFS" I took that as he thinks it's not a lot. Who decides what's momentous to anyone or not unless he know the finance of every Hibs supporter? Saying that it wouldn't surprise me as one guy on here knows the thoughts of 99% of fans!

[marinello59]

He said "it's not momentous it's £225 FFS" I took that as he thinks it's not a lot. Who decides what's momentous to anyone or not unless he know the finance of every Hibs supporter? Saying that it wouldn't surprise me as one guy on here knows the thoughts of 99% of fans!

Keep digging. It's fun watching you disappear down that hole.:greengrin

[Pete]

He said "it's not momentous it's £225 FFS" I took that as he thinks it's not a lot. Who decides what's momentous to anyone or not unless he know the finance of every Hibs supporter? Saying that it wouldn't surprise me as one guy on here knows the thoughts of 99% of fans!

If you consider £225 to be momentous you wouldn't be considering purchasing shares so I don't understand why people are arguing about this.

There are plenty other things we could be talking about, isn't there?

[kano]

Keep digging. It's fun watching you disappear down that hole.:greengrin


Same here! Got to to go though Simon Pia has got me a column it's tomorrow's Guardian and a spot on Sky Sports news. Goodnight.

[Just Alf]

He said "it's not momentous it's £225 FFS" I took that as he thinks it's not a lot. Who decides what's momentous to anyone or not unless he know the finance of every Hibs supporter? Saying that it wouldn't surprise me as one guy on here knows the thoughts of 99% of fans!

Hi Kano... Saw you'd replied to the thread and thought you'd maybe started answering some of the questions..... If you want anyone to know, or at least understand, where you're coming from you'll need to offer something up? Otherwise it'll come across as all just P & W :aok:

[Mon Dieu4]

Should all sign up for big brother, this has the potential to beat the car crash celebrity version:greengrin

[DaveF]

Same here! Got to to go though Simon Pia has got me a column it's tomorrow's Guardian and a spot on Sky Sports news. Goodnight.

When asked a question, just say 'umm, ehhh' and stare at your shoes for a while. It seems to work for you on here :agree:

[Lago]

I'm absolutely anti Petrie and stood at the rally in the summer shouting for him to go. But that's not going to stop me from probably (once I get and read the documentation) supporting this scheme as a way to help my club re-build.

Some people would appear to be looking for active ways to break this apart and then what?
Agree 100%

[lEXO]

Another attention seeker, nutter, trouble maker.. Or maybe it's Simon Pia writing this too. 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/record-fc-hibernian-clubs-new-5025470


Maybe you want to answer some of the points raised on here rather than just highlighting INDIVIDUALS who are opposed to the proposal - it might just might give you more credibility.

This............

[Pretty Boy]

Same here! Got to to go though Simon Pia has got me a column it's tomorrow's Guardian and a spot on Sky Sports news. Goodnight.

:faf:

I hope you hang around for a while, you're great fun.

[Saturday Boy]

:faf:

I hope you hang around for a while, you're great fun.

It is quite fun reading some of these "HOH" followers posts. It may just be that time of night, but they do remind me of the French Knights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. :agree:

[bigwheel]

It is quite fun reading some of these "HOH" followers posts. It may just be that time of night, but they do remind me of the French Knights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. :agree:

Hah. Yes, The People Front of Hibernian versus the Hibernian's people's front .....

[Saturday Boy]

Hah. Yes, The People Front of Hibernian versus the Hibernian's people's front .....

That's from Life of Brian (sad, I know). I was thinking more of the bizarre and ineffective insults from the Knights in the castle before the "good guys" launched their Trojan cow and other animals over the walls from a catapult. Without any of them being inside. I haven't seen it since it was in the cinema. I think I got in for two jam jars, and change for the tram home.:wink:

[bigwheel]

That's from Life of Brian (sad, I know). I was thinking more of the bizarre and ineffective insults from the Knights in the castle before the "good guys" launched their Trojan cow and other animals over the walls from a catapult. Without any of them being inside. I haven't seen it since it was in the cinema. I think I got in for two jam jars, and change for the tram home.:wink:

A mere flesh wound. Come back and fight !

[Saturday Boy]

A mere flesh wound. Come back and fight !

Pas long as you don't want to know my favourite colour!

[brog]

Wow! I took a break from the various H of H threads etc for a couple of days & just checked them out now. I actually thought there was something strange going on when the DR gave house room to an unknown rep from H of H raising concerns about the potential share issue. It's now escalated way beyond that & unfortunately we seem to have reached the horrible state that Matty F warned against weeks ago. I have no truck with H of H but I do have a couple of thoughts which go slightly against the perceived wisdom on this board.
1. I think David Low's comments were in the main reasonable & I would hope for answers to some of these comments at the AGM.
2. Is it now a Net Fact that Simon Pia is co-ordinating all these various press interviews & statements? I think we need to be careful on this board that we don't go down the H of H route, ie making assertions without any evidence or facts to support them.
3. Mike Riley is way out his depth & does not speak for me.
As others have said this is an unnecessary distraction at a time when we're making progress in so many ways.

[Andy74]

The Scotsman and others would also have to pay attention to a Hibs.net spokesman who would be able to represent significantly more people than HOH or BuyHibs. Just a thought.

[matty_f]

The Scotsman and others would also have to pay attention to a Hibs.net spokesman who would be able to represent significantly more people than HOH or BuyHibs. Just a thought.

Is that you volunteering, Andy? :greengrin

[basehibby]

Having trawled through this whole thread now a few observations:

David Low - who? why?


Jamie Montgomery - why not learn to read before you try writing - says he doesn't know where the £5M debt to the holding co's come from - that information is everywhere to anyone that's interested.


Mike Riley - absolute trumpet who consistently shoots his mouth off as if he's representing the Hibs support before with his next breath admitting he has no clue as to what we are thinking as a whole.


Buy Hibs - the only reason they have to feel pished off is because HSL have stolen their thunder


HoH - In my honest opinion they have a point that some more transparency on a certain key issue would be most desireable - however what seems to me a gratuitously hostile approach to anything Farmer/Petrie come out with has totally alienated me - in danger of seriously hurting the club if they don't take a step back and think "what are we actually trying to achieve here?"

Re the "certain key issue" - that would be the terms attached to the £5M debt which the club now owes the holding co. For all we know it could be payment terms that make wonga.com seem like the place to go to mortgage your new hoose! Personally I do not believe there is anything to fear of that nature as I am of the belief that both Farmer & Petrie wish nothing but success to what is still in a very real sense THEIR football club.
However - for anyone interested in buying a stake in Hibs this is undoubtably very pertinent information, and I am personally not particularly satisfied with the somewhat glib statement that the information is "commercially sensitive". We need to know more about this.

That apart though I think there is a superb opportunity on the table - whereby we are being offered a chance as supporters to take a controlling interest in our club (assuming we can ever agree about anything :greengrin) for a very reasonable price AND with every penny going back into Hibs' coffers. We need to cut out on the bickering now and work through this. Maybe the club does need to provide some more answers - but certainly also some sections of the support need to calm down and start giving consideration to the positive aspects that are certainly present in this proposal.

I think on balance there is an excellent chance on hand to move forward - but we'll need to do it together - lets not let it slip by!

[Andy74]

Having trawled through this whole thread now a few observations:

David Low - who? why?


Jamie Montgomery - why not learn to read before you try writing - says he doesn't know where the £5M debt to the holding co's come from - that information is everywhere to anyone that's interested.


Mike Riley - absolute trumpet who consistently shoots his mouth off as if he's representing the Hibs support before with his next breath admitting he has no clue as to what we are thinking as a whole.


Buy Hibs - the only reason they have to feel pished off is because HSL have stolen their thunder


HoH - In my honest opinion they have a point that some more transparency on a certain key issue would be most desireable - however what seems to me a gratuitously hostile approach to anything Farmer/Petrie come out with has totally alienated me - in danger of seriously hurting the club if they don't take a step back and think "what are we actually trying to achieve here?"

Re the "certain key issue" - that would be the terms attached to the £5M debt which the club now owes the holding co. For all we know it could be payment terms that make wonga.com seem like the place to go to mortgage your new hoose! Personally I do not believe there is anything to fear of that nature as I am of the belief that both Farmer & Petrie wish nothing but success to what is still in a very real sense THEIR football club.
However - for anyone interested in buying a stake in Hibs this is undoubtably very pertinent information, and I am personally not particularly satisfied with the somewhat glib statement that the information is "commercially sensitive". We need to know more about this.

That apart though I think there is a superb opportunity on the table - whereby we are being offered a chance as supporters to take a controlling interest in our club (assuming we can ever agree about anything :greengrin) for a very reasonable price AND with every penny going back into Hibs' coffers. We need to cut out on the bickering now and work through this. Maybe the club does need to provide some more answers - but certainly also some sections of the support need to calm down and start giving consideration to the positive aspects that are certainly present in this proposal.

I think on balance there is an excellent chance on hand to move forward - but we'll need to do it together - lets not let it slip by!

When the debt has gone from £9.5 m to £5 m and the current owners are also taking a hit to their ownership of up to 50 per cent or so why is the detail of the terms of the £5 m important? Leeann has said the terms are better than we had with the bank.

[The_Exile]

why is the detail of the terms of the £5 m important?

14127

[basehibby]

When the debt has gone from £9.5 m to £5 m and the current owners are also taking a hit to their ownership of up to 50 per cent or so why is the detail of the terms of the £5 m important? Leeann has said the terms are better than we had with the bank.

Well, as stated, while these terms remain under wraps they could be literally anything - 10,000% pa interest is the sort of thing that the Yams' jersey sponsors of last season would offer as standard I think. Also there's the term of the loan - it could be payable over 5 years leaving us scraping about for £1M a year!

As it happens, I don't believe that Farmer or Petrie would be at all likely to pull a fast one like that - but why the secrecy over matters such as these? They are not as you seem to be suggesting mere trifles - they are important and pertinent details to anyone looking to purchase a stake in an organisation.

There may be good reasons for keeping such details under wraps but I haven't heard them - and with no shortage of characters out there seemingly with an axe to grind, why give them an easy excuse to kick up a stink in the press and cry foul?

"Leeann has said the terms are better than we had with the bank" - well that's good to hear but maybe she should make that case a bit clearer and put a bit of meat on the bones of it :cb

[The_Horde]

So we have hibs fans in the HSL camp and fans against HSL. But the camps against HSL are also against each other's views on how we move forward?

Would be interesting to get rough numbers on who's backing what to see just how big a division there is between everyone.

Sooner we can unite and move forward the better!

[tamig]

Speculation. The above is consistent with what some people got in their head might happen. It was not likely then and the detail that has since been provided by the club on the holding company debt for equity swap bears out that this speculation was not correct.

Just catching up on this thread and you really won't let this go. I've indicated before how Lloyds operate with these deals. Hibs will not have settled anywhere near the total o/s bank debt. A large chunk was written off by the bank.

[marinello59]

2. Is it now a Net Fact that Simon Pia is co-ordinating all these various press interviews & statements? I think we need to be careful on this board that we don't go down the H of H route, ie making assertions without any evidence or facts to support them.


Good point. It would be easy to overplay the involvement of individuals. It's the content or lack of it from either side that needs scrutiny.

[Fergos]

Same here! Got to to go though Simon Pia has got me a column it's tomorrow's Guardian and a spot on Sky Sports news. Goodnight.

Not had sky sports on yet but scanned the Guardian and nothing?

Anyone seen it?

GGTTH

[marinello59]

Not had sky sports on yet but scanned the Guardian and nothing?

Anyone seen it?

GGTTH

Is this a whoosh moment? :greengrin

[Fergos]

Is this a whoosh moment? :greengrin

Oh its a wind up....he'll need to flag these clearly now as it's hard to tell what's a wind up and not then.....

Ill take that hook out my back now pmsl

GGTTH

[Tyler Durden]

Wow! I took a break from the various H of H threads etc for a couple of days & just checked them out now. I actually thought there was something strange going on when the DR gave house room to an unknown rep from H of H raising concerns about the potential share issue. It's now escalated way beyond that & unfortunately we seem to have reached the horrible state that Matty F warned against weeks ago. I have no truck with H of H but I do have a couple of thoughts which go slightly against the perceived wisdom on this board.
1. I think David Low's comments were in the main reasonable & I would hope for answers to some of these comments at the AGM.
2. Is it now a Net Fact that Simon Pia is co-ordinating all these various press interviews & statements? I think we need to be careful on this board that we don't go down the H of H route, ie making assertions without any evidence or facts to support them.
3. Mike Riley is way out his depth & does not speak for me.
As others have said this is an unnecessary distraction at a time when we're making progress in so many ways.

Fair summary for me. I agree that Low raised some good points and IIRC he does qualify that it's nothing to do with him really.

It's a difficult tightrope to walk here. Ideally Hibs need to call the bluff of some of these accusations. I appreciate that Dempster has attempted to do so already however. You'd hope that a few key disclosures (6 month mgmt accounts, headline max interest figure) would shut some people up but I think we all know HOH aren't interested in facts and will simply invent a new reason to be outraged.

Riley is an imbecile. "How or why STF wants the loan repaid"! The attitude stinks that STF is a millionaire and therefore is obliged to give us money

[Kavinho]

Just catching up on this thread and you really won't let this go. I've indicated before how Lloyds operate with these deals. Hibs will not have settled anywhere near the total o/s bank debt. A large chunk was written off by the bank.

I disagree.
Imo, i think they'll just have given a 'present cash discount' for being paid out early (Eg Would you take £90 now for a £100 debt I'm due to repay in 5 years?)

For a debt that was being honoured by the club, I cant see why they would provide any write off at all over and above that.

in any event, it'll be because of the bank that this remains commercially sensitive, and under wraps.
I fully trust LD when she says this is a better deal for the club

[Tyler Durden]

I disagree.
Imo, i think they'll just have given a 'present cash discount' for being paid out early (Eg Would you take £90 now for a £100 debt I'm due to repay in 5 years?)

For a debt that was being honoured by the club, I cant see why they would provide any write off at all over and above that.

in any event, it'll be because of the bank that this remains commercially sensitive, and under wraps.
I fully trust LD when she says this is a better deal for the club

Due to the banks view on Hibs assets they'd be impaired and by several million. Due to this status the bank have to hold a prohibitive amount of capital to support the debt - it's costly. By writing this off, they free up capital to be used on profitable ventures, it helps the balance sheet.

Usually the bank would restructure a business to get their debt back to a manageable level and make money off the client longer term. That's not possible with football clubs.

All of this is widely available information

[Kavinho]

Due to the banks view on Hibs assets they'd be impaired and by several million. Due to this status the bank have to hold a prohibitive amount of capital to support the debt - it's costly. By writing this off, they free up capital to be used on profitable ventures, it helps the balance sheet.

Usually the bank would restructure a business to get their debt back to a manageable level and make money off the client longer term. That's not possible with football clubs.

All of this is widely available information

How was it impaired debt when the repayments were consistently being met?

I might be struggling meeting my mortgage, but as long as I meet the commitment to the bank, theres no chance of a write off, even if it does leave me on bread and water for the month

[green day]

How was it impaired debt when the repayments were consistently being met?

I might be struggling meeting my mortgage, but as long as I meet the commitment to the bank, theres no chance of a write off, even if it does leave me on bread and water for the month

Small debts get pursued, big debts get written off. Its what happens all the time.

[Kavinho]

Small debts get pursued, big debts get written off. Its what happens all the time.

Big debt that was being met on the contractually agreed repayment schedule - far as I can tell anyway.


Anyway, I'm taking this off on a tangent. My ultimate point is I've trust that the current deal is much better than what the club had with the bank, and as a corollary, HOH do not have my support in any shape

[CentreLine]

Well, as stated, while these terms remain under wraps they could be literally anything - 10,000% pa interest is the sort of thing that the Yams' jersey sponsors of last season would offer as standard I think. Also there's the term of the loan - it could be payable over 5 years leaving us scraping about for £1M a year!

As it happens, I don't believe that Farmer or Petrie would be at all likely to pull a fast one like that - but why the secrecy over matters such as these? They are not as you seem to be suggesting mere trifles - they are important and pertinent details to anyone looking to purchase a stake in an organisation.

There may be good reasons for keeping such details under wraps but I haven't heard them - and with no shortage of characters out there seemingly with an axe to grind, why give them an easy excuse to kick up a stink in the press and cry foul?

"Leeann has said the terms are better than we had with the bank" - well that's good to hear but maybe she should make that case a bit clearer and put a bit of meat on the bones of it :cb

When this issue was announced the club made it clear that some details would be announced shortly (tick) and that more detail would be given at the agm. What I don't understand is why people are so keen to pick the club up before it has fallen down.
So many "experts" with so many questions when the facts have still to be laid out in the first place.

Patience people please

[Just Alf]

When this issue was announced the club made it clear that some details would be announced shortly (tick) and that more detail would be given at the agm. What I don't understand is why people are so keen to pick the club up before it has fallen down.
So many "experts" with so many questions when the facts have still to be laid out in the first place.

Patience people please

THIS!

Remember, it's the Bank that have insisted on commercial confidentiality. So as I see it, it's THAT deal we won't hear about, I have it in my mind that the deal between Hibs and the holding company is totally separate to that and is exactly part of the "to be announced shortly" stuff ...... Let's be honest here, surely this info should go to the (current) share holders 1st? :dunno:

[Kavinho]

THIS!

Remember, it's the Bank that have insisted on commercial confidentiality. So as I see it, it's THAT deal we won't hear about, I have it in my mind that the deal between Hibs and the holding company is totally separate to that and is exactly part of the "to be announced shortly" stuff ...... Let's be honest here, surely this info should go to the (current) share holders 1st? :dunno:

Seems a perfectly sensible view to me!

[brog]

Good point. It would be easy to overplay the involvement of individuals. It's the content or lack of it from either side that needs scrutiny.

Thanks, I agree 100% re the content rather than the individuals involved. TBH I find the concept of Simon Pia as a Blofeld type figure faintly ludicrous & I think we're in danger of unnecessarily elevating his influence!

[jacomo]

The Scotsman and others would also have to pay attention to a Hibs.net spokesman who would be able to represent significantly more people than HOH or BuyHibs. Just a thought.

Media outlets take poll results etc from this site already. What would the Hibs.net spokesman say? This is a fans forum, not a pressure group.

[CropleyWasGod]

Thanks, I agree 100% re the content rather than the individuals involved. TBH I find the concept of Simon Pia as a Blofeld type figure faintly ludicrous & I think we're in danger of unnecessarily elevating his influence!

Steady.

It's supposed to be Hibs.net punters who are stroking their pussies.

[JimBHibees]

It is quite fun reading some of these "HOH" followers posts. It may just be that time of night, but they do remind me of the French Knights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. :agree:

Brilliant film, "would it help if I run away a bit further" :greengrin.

[Mibbes Aye]

Having trawled through this whole thread now a few observations:

David Low - who? why?


Jamie Montgomery - why not learn to read before you try writing - says he doesn't know where the £5M debt to the holding co's come from - that information is everywhere to anyone that's interested.


Mike Riley - absolute trumpet who consistently shoots his mouth off as if he's representing the Hibs support before with his next breath admitting he has no clue as to what we are thinking as a whole.


Buy Hibs - the only reason they have to feel pished off is because HSL have stolen their thunder


HoH - In my honest opinion they have a point that some more transparency on a certain key issue would be most desireable - however what seems to me a gratuitously hostile approach to anything Farmer/Petrie come out with has totally alienated me - in danger of seriously hurting the club if they don't take a step back and think "what are we actually trying to achieve here?"

Re the "certain key issue" - that would be the terms attached to the £5M debt which the club now owes the holding co. For all we know it could be payment terms that make wonga.com seem like the place to go to mortgage your new hoose! Personally I do not believe there is anything to fear of that nature as I am of the belief that both Farmer & Petrie wish nothing but success to what is still in a very real sense THEIR football club.
However - for anyone interested in buying a stake in Hibs this is undoubtably very pertinent information, and I am personally not particularly satisfied with the somewhat glib statement that the information is "commercially sensitive". We need to know more about this.

That apart though I think there is a superb opportunity on the table - whereby we are being offered a chance as supporters to take a controlling interest in our club (assuming we can ever agree about anything :greengrin) for a very reasonable price AND with every penny going back into Hibs' coffers. We need to cut out on the bickering now and work through this. Maybe the club does need to provide some more answers - but certainly also some sections of the support need to calm down and start giving consideration to the positive aspects that are certainly present in this proposal.

I think on balance there is an excellent chance on hand to move forward - but we'll need to do it together - lets not let it slip by!

Ten annual payments of 500K.

Meaning it's interest-free and we could be debt-free by our 150th birthday.

[Ozyhibby]

How was it impaired debt when the repayments were consistently being met?

I might be struggling meeting my mortgage, but as long as I meet the commitment to the bank, theres no chance of a write off, even if it does leave me on bread and water for the month

Lots of people who had never missed a mortgage payment in their life ended up in the bad bank side of the business when Northern Rock was split up. It was all to do with how the bank viewed their asset class.

[Andy74]

Lots of people who had never missed a mortgage payment in their life ended up in the bad bank side of the business when Northern Rock was split up. It was all to do with how the bank viewed their asset class.

That's not to say they were all written off though.

The evidence and statements all point to the vast majority of the debt if not all of it being paid.

Any arguments to the contrary are plucking things out the air based im in what we think has happened in other pretty non comparable situations.

The holding company ended up with £9.5 m debt. That's been stated. The support of the holding company was mentioned several times as was the fact we got external funding.

It would be nice for the people involved to get some credit for it.

[RyeSloan]

That's not to say they were all written off though. The evidence and statements all point to the vast majority of the debt if not all of it being paid. Any arguments to the contrary are plucking things out the air based im in what we think has happened in other pretty non comparable situations. The holding company ended up with £9.5 m debt. That's been stated. The support of the holding company was mentioned several times as was the fact we got external funding. It would be nice for the people involved to get some credit for it.

Yer wasting your time Andy...people are looking for something that's not there...any arguments to the contrary will be ignored.

Fact is it doesn't matter how much the bank wrote off (and for the record I doubt it was a significant percentage) or how much STF put up...in the end of the day STF has cut a deal that has reduced our debt by £4.5m...quite who done what doesn't matter one jot.

And now we know that the remaining debt is INTEREST FREE and will be paid off using monies that would have gone to servicing the bank debt plus we have avoided £4m worth of lump sum payments...jeeez if someone could organise that for my mortgage I would be fricking delighted and I sure as hell wouldn't be bothered who had taken the hit.

Time for HoH and BuyHibs to admit they are no longer needed or wanted and to put their toys away and get behind the club. Nothing wrong in suggesting they will be watching and will be back if needed but now is the time to rally round the clubs plans and act as one.

[tamig]

That's not to say they were all written off though.

The evidence and statements all point to the vast majority of the debt if not all of it being paid.

Any arguments to the contrary are plucking things out the air based im in what we think has happened in other pretty non comparable situations.

The holding company ended up with £9.5 m debt. That's been stated. The support of the holding company was mentioned several times as was the fact we got external funding.

It would be nice for the people involved to get some credit for it.
You are wrong. The vast majority of the bank debt was written off by Lloyds.
Which statements can you point to indicating it may all have been paid?

[Kaiser1962]

You are wrong. The vast majority of the bank debt was written off by Lloyds.
Which statements can you point to indicating it may all have been paid?

How much was written off?

[Tyler Durden]

How was it impaired debt when the repayments were consistently being met?

I might be struggling meeting my mortgage, but as long as I meet the commitment to the bank, theres no chance of a write off, even if it does leave me on bread and water for the month

The bank look at the risk should there be a default.

In your case they repossess your home and there is no loss. In the case of Hibs they would not get involved with the PR implications of selling ER. Just wouldn't happen and therefore it has negligible security value. So there are less assets than debt and therefore the debt is impaired.

Again - it's no mystery why banks are no longer lending to football clubs.

[Andy74]

You are wrong. The vast majority of the bank debt was written off by Lloyds.
Which statements can you point to indicating it may all have been paid?

I give up. You can point to something showing your statement to be true if you like. The statements to the contrary are all there.

[Tyler Durden]

That's not to say they were all written off though.

The evidence and statements all point to the vast majority of the debt if not all of it being paid.

Any arguments to the contrary are plucking things out the air based im in what we think has happened in other pretty non comparable situations.

The holding company ended up with £9.5 m debt. That's been stated. The support of the holding company was mentioned several times as was the fact we got external funding.

It would be nice for the people involved to get some credit for it.

The external funding is the holdco

[SunshineOnLeith]

Let's play a game, try to predict the HOH response.

I'm guessing they'll say '500k pa into Farmer and Petrie's pockets on top of the share money, it's a shakedown!'

[jacomo]

That's not to say they were all written off though.

The evidence and statements all point to the vast majority of the debt if not all of it being paid.

Any arguments to the contrary are plucking things out the air based im in what we think has happened in other pretty non comparable situations.

The holding company ended up with £9.5 m debt. That's been stated. The support of the holding company was mentioned several times as was the fact we got external funding.

It would be nice for the people involved to get some credit for it.

I can understand where you are coming from, but you are speculating as much as anyone else, and it's going round in circles.

To my mind, STF / RP deserve credit for negotiating a halving of the debt, regardless of the details, and certainly deserve credit for making 51% of the club available for no personal gain and forgoing interest on the £5m 'mortgage'.

[Beefster]

The transfer of ownership has turned into an absolute car crash thanks to HoH, BuyHibs, Mike Riley and co. Good work, chaps. I ****ing despair.

No agendas at play whatsoever though...

[Andy74]

The external funding is the holdco

Precisely. And their debt went up from £3m to £9.5m. Those are stated facts. Bank debt was £6.3m.

They are swapping £4.5m for equity and new debt is £5m.

I wonder where that £6m additional debt came from?

[Tyler Durden]

I can understand where you are coming from, but you are speculating as much as anyone else, and it's going round in circles.

To my mind, STF / RP deserve credit for negotiating a halving of the debt, regardless of the details, and certainly deserve credit for making 51% of the club available for no personal gain and forgoing interest on the £5m 'mortgage'.

Exactly. I don't actually see many people trying to question STF or Petrie. Just disagreeing with Andy's view which he can't actually evidence any more than those he dismisses himself.

[The Falcon]

The external funding is the holdco

Which is likely to be STF?

[CallumLaidlaw]

Let's play a game, try to predict the HOH response.

I'm guessing they'll say '500k pa into Farmer and Petrie's pockets on top of the share money, it's a shakedown!'

I've already seen on twitter that the club aren't telling us how the £5m is made up. I dont really understand the relevance. we had £9.5m debt. Its now £5m. Surely that is all that really matters? Or am I missing something really obvious?

[Lurkio]

Precisely. And their debt went up from £3m to £9.5m. Those are stated facts. Bank debt was £6.3m.

They are swapping £4.5m for equity and new debt is £5m.

I wonder where that £6m additional debt came from?

Leeann's statement on Wednesday evening stated that the holding company bought the debt. That's where the £9.5M came from and the claim of the holding company that they had written off £4.5M to leave the club with a £5M debt to the holding company. None of that is disputed.

What she has refused to reveal, for reasons of confidentiality, is how much the holding company paid the bank for the debt. If the club had paid the debt off in full then there would be no need for confidentiality and I'm sure Leeann would be shouting that from the rooftops. If the deal negotiated with the bank was in line with those negotiated by other clubs (Leeann also refers to "other clubs" in the statement) then that the settlement figure was probably just shy of £2M as discussed in this forum in late November and early December.

That being the case, then it was the bank who wrote off the £4.5M in hard cash and not the holding company. The Bank and the holding company cannot both have written off £4.5M in hard cash otherwise the club would be virtually debt free now.

IMO the holding company should not be converting the claimed £4.5M write-off of the clubs debt into equity because that £4.5M was never handed over by the holding company to the club.

[lyonhibs]

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/scott-robertson-eager-for-a-new-hibs-deal-1-3669591

Check out the last paragraph of this article (FYI I think we should offer Robertson another deal, but that's for another thread)

I assume we have quite a few members of officially affiliated supporters clubs on the board, so would be interesting to know if there was any indication from them on the "overall" feeling about HSL from your supporters club.

I suspect the supporter's groups that Mr Riley has heard speak out against it are as follows:

The Mike Riley Hibs Supporters Club
The Mike Riley club of Hibernian Supporters and
The Mike Riley Hibernian FC Supporters Association

Either way, this actively divise chat he spouts isn't particularly helpful.

[DaveF]

A few people saying the bank have written off this money. Can these people show me an article where I can see that for myself please?

Also, is there any examples in recent times where banks have written such large amounts for football clubs?

[Andy74]

Leeann's statement on Wednesday evening stated that the holding company bought the debt. That's where the £9.5M came from and the claim of the holding company that they had written off £4.5M to leave the club with a £5M debt to the holding company. None of that is disputed.

What she has refused to reveal, for reasons of confidentiality, is how much the holding company paid the bank for the debt. If the club had paid the debt off in full then there would be no need for confidentiality and I'm sure Leeann would be shouting that from the rooftops. If the deal negotiated with the bank was in line with those negotiated by other clubs (Leeann also refers to "other clubs" in the statement) then that the settlement figure was probably just shy of £2M as discussed in this forum in late November and early December.

That being the case, then it was the bank who wrote off the £4.5M in hard cash and not the holding company. The Bank and the holding company cannot both have written off £4.5M in hard cash otherwise the club would be virtually debt free now.

IMO the holding company should not be converting the claimed £4.5M write-off of the clubs debt into equity because that £4.5M was never handed over by the holding company to the club.

Your last paragraph illustrates why the rest of your post can't be right. It was a real debt because they paid the bank. They will now swap it for equity, effectively writing it off.

[CropleyWasGod]

You are wrong. The vast majority of the bank debt was written off by Lloyds.
Which statements can you point to indicating it may all have been paid?

Do you have evidence of this?

I'm genuinely interested

[jacomo]

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/scott-robertson-eager-for-a-new-hibs-deal-1-3669591

Check out the last paragraph of this article (FYI I think we should offer Robertson another deal, but that's for another thread)

I assume we have quite a few members of officially affiliated supporters clubs on the board, so would be interesting to know if there was any indication from them on the "overall" feeling about HSL from your supporters club.

I suspect the supporter's groups that Mr Riley has heard speak out against it are as follows:

The Mike Riley Hibs Supporters Club
The Mike Riley club of Hibernian Supporters and
The Mike Riley Hibernian FC Supporters Association

Either way, this actively divise chat he spouts isn't particularly helpful.

I think Mike Riley has made a bit of a fool of himself.

Edit: this is just my personal opinion!

[Kavinho]

Do you have evidence of this?

I'm genuinely interested

There is no danger the bank wrote off 4.5m out of 6.3, when the repayments to date have been fully met. (No one disputes that the payments have been made surely?)

There's just no commercial sense in that from the banks from what I can see. And I appreciate the banks view on the realiseable value of our assets might be that its limited.

I'll review that position should any evidence to the contrary turn up!

[Caversham Green]

We should be able to tell how the loan was repaid when the holding club's accounts are issued, unfortunately that's likely to be a year or more from now.

It all strikes me as irrelevant in any case - the bottom line is that the holding company has engineered a deal that the club couldn't afford to and the club has reaped the full benefit of that deal.

[Andy74]

We should be able to tell how the loan was repaid when the holding club's accounts are issued, unfortunately that's likely to be a year or more from now.

It all strikes me as irrelevant in any case - the bottom line is that the holding company has engineered a deal that the club couldn't afford to and the club has reaped the full benefit of that deal.

It would be relevant if they were swapping debt for equity when that debt didn't really exist. It would mean we were being misled which I don't believe is the case. If the bank wrote it off it would not have reached the holding company as debt.

[RyeSloan]

We should be able to tell how the loan was repaid when the holding club's accounts are issued, unfortunately that's likely to be a year or more from now. It all strikes me as irrelevant in any case - the bottom line is that the holding company has engineered a deal that the club couldn't afford to and the club has reaped the full benefit of that deal.

Exactly....but for some that doesn't seem to be enough!

Personally I'm fed up with the whole saga.

[Kavinho]

We should be able to tell how the loan was repaid when the holding club's accounts are issued, unfortunately that's likely to be a year or more from now.

It all strikes me as irrelevant in any case - the bottom line is that the holding company has engineered a deal that the club couldn't afford to and the club has reaped the full benefit of that deal.

The Voice of reason. Again!

[Caversham Green]

It would be relevant if they were swapping debt for equity when that debt didn't really exist. It would mean we were being misled which I don't believe is the case. If the bank wrote it off it would not have reached the holding company as debt.

The debt did exist, without question. The club had debt of £9.3m before the deal was done and that's how it would have stayed if the holding company had not stumped up a substantial but as yet unspecified amount of cash. If the holding company gained anything from the deal it has passed that gain on to the club by taking up a batch of shares that were meaningless within context. The very worst reading of the situation is that the holding company will get back all of the money it has laid out up to ten years late and without interest.

FWIW I very much doubt if the settlement discount was anything like the amount some are suggesting.

[Andy74]

The debt did exist, without question. The club had debt of £9.3m before the deal was done and that's how it would have stayed if the holding company had not stumped up a substantial but as yet unspecified amount of cash. If the holding company gained anything from the deal it has passed that gain on to the club by taking up a batch of shares that were meaningless within context. The very worst reading of the situation is that the holding company will get back all of the money it has laid out up to ten years late and without interest.

FWIW I very much doubt if the settlement discount was anything like the amount some are suggesting.

I mean the holding co debt. If the bank had taken a hit the 9.5m would never have been reached.

[Lurkio]

It would be relevant if they were swapping debt for equity when that debt didn't really exist. It would mean we were being misled which I don't believe is the case. If the bank wrote it off it would not have reached the holding company as debt.

That's where we differ. I don't think we are being misled about a £4.5 write-off, but I see it more as spin, because the holding company can legitimately claim to have done that having bought ALL the debt from the bank. If we have been misled then it is only related to the DFE swap

Leeann's statement on Wednesday included: "The net result of buying out bank debt" So there is no doubt that the holding company paid something to the bank for the debt. How much they paid is a more pertinent question.

My contention is simply that the bank took a large haircut on that debt, based on their recent dealings with Kilmarnock, Dundee United and Aberdeen. That being the case the holding company did not make such a sacrifice in hard cash as the spin would have us believe.

If previously stated that for me it is about trust, and the club haven't got me on board yet. The AGM may provide the assurances I am looking for.

[Andy74]

That's where we differ. I don't think we are being misled about a £4.5 write-off, but I see it more as spin because the holding company can legitimately claim to have done that having bought the debt from the bank. If we have been misled then it is only related to the DFE swap

Leeann's statement on Wednesday included: "The net result of buying out bank debt" So there is no doubt that the holding company paid something to the bank for that debt. How much they paid is a more pertinent question.

My contention is simply that the bank took a large haircut on that debt, based on their recent dealings with Kilmarnock, Dundee United and Aberdeen. That being the case the holding company did not make such a sacrifice in hard cash as the spin would have us believe.

If previously stated that for me it is about trust, and the club haven't got me on board yet. The AGM may provide the assurances I am looking for.

It would be significantly misleading.

They were due £3m before.

If there was a write off and say they paid £2m to the bank then they would be due £5m.

That's what they are due now.

In addition, however, they will have helped themselves to £4.5m of equity and probably security on the stadium.

I'm not buying that this is the case.

[Ozyhibby]

That's not to say they were all written off though.

The evidence and statements all point to the vast majority of the debt if not all of it being paid.

Any arguments to the contrary are plucking things out the air based im in what we think has happened in other pretty non comparable situations.

The holding company ended up with £9.5 m debt. That's been stated. The support of the holding company was mentioned several times as was the fact we got external funding.

It would be nice for the people involved to get some credit for it.

I'm not complaining about the deal. I think it's a good one. I was just pointing out that debts can be written down without a default occurring.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't care who took the hit on the debt. I know who didn't, Hibs.
That's all that really matters.

[Kavinho]

That's where we differ. I don't think we are being misled about a £4.5 write-off, but I see it more as spin, because the holding company can legitimately claim to have done that having bought ALL the debt from the bank. If we have been misled then it is only related to the DFE swap

Leeann's statement on Wednesday included: "The net result of buying out bank debt" So there is no doubt that the holding company paid something to the bank for the debt. How much they paid is a more pertinent question.

My contention is simply that the bank took a large haircut on that debt, based on their recent dealings with Kilmarnock, Dundee United and Aberdeen. That being the case the holding company did not make such a sacrifice in hard cash as the spin would have us believe.

If previously stated that for me it is about trust, and the club haven't got me on board yet. The AGM may provide the assurances I am looking for.

The Bank would take each individual case on its own merit. Just because other clubs have been handed a big write off, doesn't mean the same occurred here.

I just cant see how they'd be willing to take a big loss on a loan that is performing - ie, the repayments are being made.

Time will tell, but without any having any facts to back up an opinion, I'd still be inclined to say the only discount given here would be for paying early. (Thanks Sir Tom)

[DaveF]

The Bank would take each individual case on its own merit. Just because other clubs have been handed a big write off, doesn't mean the same occurred here.

I just cant see how they'd be willing to take a big loss on a loan that is performing - ie, the repayments are being made.

Time will tell, but without any having any facts to back up an opinion, I'd still be inclined to say the only discount given here would be for paying early. (Thanks Sir Tom)

Which ones?

[Kavinho]

I don't care who took the hit on the debt. I know who didn't, Hibs.
That's all that really matters.

Fully agree it is, although in the context of this thread this all stemmed from HOH claims of a shakedown, and lack of transparency to the benefit of the owners.

[Kavinho]

Which ones?

Lurkios claim in his previous post.
Killie, DU..

[Andy74]

I don't care who took the hit on the debt. I know who didn't, Hibs.
That's all that really matters.

No but you'd care if they took £4.5m of equity for nothing though?

[DaveF]

My contention is simply that the bank took a large haircut on that debt, based on their recent dealings with Kilmarnock, Dundee United and Aberdeen


Lurkios claim in his previous post.
Killie, DU..

Killie - Funded by Billy Bowie. No bank 'haircut' here as far as far as I can tell http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26583407

Dundee United - Paid off by businessmen. No bank haircut here as far as I can tell http://www.thecourier.co.uk/sport/football/dundee-united/dundee-united-wipe-out-bank-debt-1.209331

Aberdeen - A wealthy couple taking the hit. No bank haircut here as far as I can tell http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/local/aberdeen-fc-secure-14-49m-deal-to-wipe-out-debts-1.678610

[Ozyhibby]

No but you'd care if they took £4.5m of equity for nothing though?

They have 99% of the equity just now?
They can take £100m pound of equity if they like, they are about to sell us half of it for £2.5m.

[ancient hibee]

That's where we differ. I don't think we are being misled about a £4.5 write-off, but I see it more as spin, because the holding company can legitimately claim to have done that having bought ALL the debt from the bank. If we have been misled then it is only related to the DFE swap

Leeann's statement on Wednesday included: "The net result of buying out bank debt" So there is no doubt that the holding company paid something to the bank for the debt. How much they paid is a more pertinent question.

My contention is simply that the bank took a large haircut on that debt, based on their recent dealings with Kilmarnock, Dundee United and Aberdeen. That being the case the holding company did not make such a sacrifice in hard cash as the spin would have us believe.

If previously stated that for me it is about trust, and the club haven't got me on board yet. The AGM may provide the assurances I am looking for.

You are mistaken regarding the three clubs you mention.

[tamig]

I can understand where you are coming from, but you are speculating as much as anyone else, and it's going round in circles.

To my mind, STF / RP deserve credit for negotiating a halving of the debt, regardless of the details, and certainly deserve credit for making 51% of the club available for no personal gain and forgoing interest on the £5m 'mortgage'.



That's it in a nutshell.:aok:

[Lurkio]

It would be significantly misleading.

They were due £3m before.

If there was a write off and say they paid £2m to the bank then they would be due £5m.

That's what they are due now.

In addition, however, they will have helped themselves to £4.5m of equity and probably security on the stadium.

I'm not buying that this is the case.

Thanks Andy - That's the first time you haven't rejected my assertions out of hand.

I'm not a current shareholder, but if anyone has a copy of the AGM documents, then they may be able to help clarify the DFE situation. There should be resolutions to issue more shares, 1) in respect of the DFE swap and 2) in respect of the new shares to go to HSL and others.

I'd be interested in knowing how many shares are being created for each element, and thus work out the value attached to each (we assume that the value of "2" is £2.5M).

There was a document lodged with Companies House earlier in the week that suggested that the latest authorised share capital was £1.25M. In the accounts the figure was £1.2M (broken down to 60M shares of 2p each), but I don't know if the change is related. Amendments to the Articles of Association were also submitted on the same date, which I think will be related to the recent developments.

[CropleyWasGod]

Thanks Andy - That's the first time you haven't rejected my assertions out of hand.

I'm not a current shareholder, but if anyone has a copy of the AGM documents, then they may be able to help clarify the DFE situation. There should be resolutions to issue more shares, 1) in respect of the DFE swap and 2) in respect of the new shares to go to HSL and others.

I'd be interested in knowing how many shares are being created for each element, and thus work out the value attached to each (we assume that the value of "2" is £2.5M).

There was a document lodged with Companies House earlier in the week that suggested that the latest authorised share capital was £1.25M. In the accounts the figure was £1.2M (broken down to 60M shares of 2p each), but I don't know if the change is related. Amendments to the Articles of Association were also submitted on the same date, which I think will be related to the recent developments.

I have the AGM notice in front of me. There are 2 items on the agenda:-

1. to receive and adopt the Annual Report.

2. to transact any other ordinary business of the company.

[NYHibby]

I have the AGM notice in front of me. There are 2 items on the agenda:-

1. to receive and adopt the Annual Report.

2. to transact any other ordinary business of the company.

He is asking about the resolution which is a separate sheet of paper.

[Baldy Foghorn]

I have the AGM notice in front of me. There are 2 items on the agenda:-

1. to receive and adopt the Annual Report.

2. to transact any other ordinary business of the company.

There are 3 special resolutions and 1 ordinary resolution

[grunt]

I'm not a current shareholder, but if anyone has a copy of the AGM documents, then they may be able to help clarify the DFE situation. There should be resolutions to issue more shares, 1) in respect of the DFE swap and 2) in respect of the new shares to go to HSL and others.

I'd be interested in knowing how many shares are being created for each element, and thus work out the value attached to each (we assume that the value of "2" is £2.5M).issued Share cap at 31/7/14 was 60m shares. Holdco held 58.9m, equiv to 98.1% of ISC. Following capitalisation of debt, ISC is 62.5m shares of which 61.4m (98.2%) is owned by Holdco.

That help?

[grunt]

The club will issue up to 62.5m new ord 2p shares at 4p per share, max proceeds will be £2.5m. All costs of the offer will be met by the club.

[Jack]

No but you'd care if they took £4.5m of equity for nothing though?

Don't give a monkeys.

The debt is Half what it used to be, the Half that's left is interest free and before long I'll Buy a share of Half of Hibs, or BHHoH, which just happens to be the name of a new Hibs group I'm forming :-)

[Tyler Durden]

Killie - Funded by Billy Bowie. No bank 'haircut' here as far as far as I can tell http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26583407

Dundee United - Paid off by businessmen. No bank haircut here as far as I can tell http://www.thecourier.co.uk/sport/football/dundee-united/dundee-united-wipe-out-bank-debt-1.209331

Aberdeen - A wealthy couple taking the hit. No bank haircut here as far as I can tell http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/local/aberdeen-fc-secure-14-49m-deal-to-wipe-out-debts-1.678610

Exactly the same as Hibs, the full details won't be released but there is equally nothing to suggest their debt was fully repaid.

I believe Lurkio has already quoted Dundee Utds accounts earlier in this thread which makes clear there was debt written off.

[DaveF]

Lurkio - Lots of posts going on so don't want you to miss replying to #441 and #443 re the bank haircuts for Killie, United and Aberdeen. It's something I've seen said by a few people but the articles in the above posts seem to refute that.

I'm happy to be put right if you can point me to something which shows the banks did write off large sums for these clubs?

[Tyler Durden]

The Bank would take each individual case on its own merit. Just because other clubs have been handed a big write off, doesn't mean the same occurred here.

I just cant see how they'd be willing to take a big loss on a loan that is performing - ie, the repayments are being made.

Time will tell, but without any having any facts to back up an opinion, I'd still be inclined to say the only discount given here would be for paying early. (Thanks Sir Tom)

I've explained this in a previous reply to you

[Tyler Durden]

I have the AGM notice in front of me. There are 2 items on the agenda:-

1. to receive and adopt the Annual Report.

2. to transact any other ordinary business of the company.

If you are attending the AGM one obvious question is whether the bank have any recourse to future club revenues as a condition of this settlement deal.

That should put this to bed.

[ancient hibee]

I've explained this in a previous reply to you

No you haven't.What you have done is given your opinion.Show me one authenticated fact establishing that the banks have recently written off football club debts

[CropleyWasGod]

There are 3 special resolutions and 1 ordinary resolution

They're not being put to the AGM, though.

[marinello59]

Exactly the same as Hibs, the full details won't be released but there is equally nothing to suggest their debt was fully repaid.

I believe Lurkio has already quoted Dundee Utds accounts earlier in this thread which makes clear there was debt written off.

Aberdeen had their debt paid off in full by a couple who made millions and wanted to give something back to the club. The bank did no deal in that case. That's a matter of fact.

[DaveF]

Exactly the same as Hibs, the full details won't be released but there is equally nothing to suggest their debt was fully repaid.

I believe Lurkio has already quoted Dundee Utds accounts earlier in this thread which makes clear there was debt written off.

I found a post explaining the Killie situation but even then Lurkio admits he can't find any figure on what the bank supposedly wrote off. Will need to go digging further for the United one!

[grunt]

Will need to go digging further for the United one!http://dufc.co/news/dundee-united-record-1-2m-profit-2014/

[Tyler Durden]

No you haven't.What you have done is given your opinion.Show me one authenticated fact establishing that the banks have recently written off football club debts

See page 5 of this thread

[Andy74]

Exactly the same as Hibs, the full details won't be released but there is equally nothing to suggest their debt was fully repaid.

I believe Lurkio has already quoted Dundee Utds accounts earlier in this thread which makes clear there was debt written off.

There is one key thing. The holding company paid more than £6m to someone!!

[DaveF]

http://dufc.co/news/dundee-united-record-1-2m-profit-2014/

Nothing in there about the 'discount' Lurkio mentions though?

I've found the earlier post which says "That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Lloyds want out of football. That is why deals have been agreed with Dundee Utd, Aberdeen and Kilmarnock. Based of numbers from those clubs' accounts it looks like the Bank discounted their debt down to 30%"

I'm assuming Lurkio has analysed the accounts of the 3 clubs concerned but for financial thicko's like me it would great to see it in black and white in a nice wee table :greengrin

[grunt]

If you are attending the AGM one obvious question is whether the bank have any recourse to future club revenues as a condition of this settlement deal. That should put this to bed.Leeann's statement talks about "removing the bank entirely" so you would think that precludes there being any outstanding conditions, no?

[Kavinho]

I've explained this in a previous reply to you

And I've stated I accept that the Banks might view that their ability to realise the security is limited, however, the loans were still being fully paid were they not? Hibs have never defaulted on their debt have they? (Genuine question)


If the loan is being maintained & paid, why would any bank reduce the amount they claim is due back? Even if there is a short fall in asset cover following a fresh look.

Your answer was to free up capital for other deals.
This deal was working fine as it was from the banks perspective

[grunt]

Nothing in there about the 'discount' Lurkio mentions though?
The club recorded an exceptional gain of £1.3m as a result of the bank deal. That can only mean that they paid less to the bank than they were due to.

[Mikey]

Don't give a monkeys.

The debt is Half what it used to be, the Half that's left is interest free...............

Yep. That'll do me and I couldn't care less how we got there!

[Tyler Durden]

There is one key thing. The holding company paid more than £6m to someone!!

Says who?

[DaveF]

The club recorded an exceptional gain of £1.3m as a result of the bank deal. That can only mean that they paid less to the bank than they were due to.

I did say I was a financial thicko :greengrin

I'd still like to see the 30% figure represented in easy to understand language for me :greengrin

[Tyler Durden]

Aberdeen had their debt paid off in full by a couple who made millions and wanted to give something back to the club. The bank did no deal in that case. That's a matter of fact.

Happy to be pointed toward evidence it was paid in full.

[Lurkio]

Killie - Funded by Billy Bowie. No bank 'haircut' here as far as far as I can tell http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26583407

Dundee United - Paid off by businessmen. No bank haircut here as far as I can tell http://www.thecourier.co.uk/sport/football/dundee-united/dundee-united-wipe-out-bank-debt-1.209331

Aberdeen - A wealthy couple taking the hit. No bank haircut here as far as I can tell http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/local/aberdeen-fc-secure-14-49m-deal-to-wipe-out-debts-1.678610

Killie - I can't locate the article I read last night, but it indicated around £2M. The Killie accounts confirmed that Bowie had been assigned the Bank debt of £6.4M (£2M is around 30%)

Dundee Utd. - The numbers are in the accounts - £1.45M paid up front for £4.8M bank debt + a cut of future transfers (£1.45M is around 30%)

Aberdeen - Their accounts confirm Stewart Milne doing a DFE swap for £4.42M in return for 3,843,478 new shares. His shareholding would go to approx 43% as a result. The Duncans 20% holding also in new shares would be 2.565M shares valued £2.95M on a pro rata basis. The club had bank debts of around £9.5M, so once again the amount involved is around the 30% mark.

Post Balance Sheet Event
Subsequent to the balance sheet date, the Group’s bank debt of £9.513 million was acquired by third parties in a transaction between those parties and the bank. This exits the Group’s remaining obligations to the bank, other than certain ongoing commitments and contingent liabilities in respect of the proceeds of future player sales and any retained surplus arising on the disposal of Pittodrie stadium. Immediately on conclusion of that transaction a refinancing agreement was entered into with the third parties and certain creditors under which the former bank debt, together with certain of the Group’s outstanding loan notes and other loans, were converted into new ordinary shares.

Hibs - The unconfirmed details of the STF deal have already been discussed on the forum. £1.872M + a cut of future transfers over £300K.

[DaveF]

Happy to be pointed toward evidence it was paid in full.

Happy to be pointed toward evidence it wasn't.

(this could go on a while :greengrin)

[Caversham Green]

The club recorded an exceptional gain of £1.3m as a result of the bank deal. That can only mean that they paid less to the bank than they were due to.

The article posted by DaveF gives an estimated of £4m for the bank debt - the last accounts I have are for 2010 and they showed a debt of £5.9m being paid at a bit over £250k per annum. That would bring the debt down to about
£5m, but the payment schedules might have changed. Anyway, a £1.3m discount on £4m is about 32.5% and I suspect that's as high a discount as any club could expect given United's dodgy financial situation. Translated to Hibs debt of £6.3m that gives us a discount of around £2m with £4.3m to be paid.

All very rough workings but that feels about right to me - 32.5% strikes me as a wee bit high.

[Lurkio]

I'm assuming Lurkio has analysed the accounts of the 3 clubs concerned but for financial thicko's like me it would great to see it in black and white in a nice wee table :greengrin

Yes- I have looked at the accounts of each of the clubs as I just happen to have an interest in football finances and how these club managed to refinance themselves. (note: I'm not an accountant)

[Caversham Green]

Nothing in there about the 'discount' Lurkio mentions though?

I've found the earlier post which says "That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Lloyds want out of football. That is why deals have been agreed with Dundee Utd, Aberdeen and Kilmarnock. Based of numbers from those clubs' accounts it looks like the Bank discounted their debt down to 30%"

I'm assuming Lurkio has analysed the accounts of the 3 clubs concerned but for financial thicko's like me it would great to see it in black and white in a nice wee table :greengrin

The accounts aren't available yet but looking at my rough workings in my last post maybe he meant "discounted their debt by 30%".

[DaveF]

Don't give a monkeys.

The debt is Half what it used to be, the Half that's left is interest free and before long I'll Buy a share of Half of Hibs, or BHHoH, which just happens to be the name of a new Hibs group I'm forming :-)

All that financial stuff is giving me a headache!

To me, this is all that matters.

[blackpoolhibs]

Why are some folk talking about what other clubs have done, we have reduced our debt this way it makes no difference what other clubs have done to reduce theirs?

Is our debt reduction not good enough now, is having less to pay back not a good thing anymore?

[Lurkio]

The accounts aren't available yet but looking at my rough workings in my last post maybe he meant "discounted their debt by 30%".

For the avoidance of doubt I'm saying that the payments by other clubs have averaged 30% and the discount given was 70%.

Dundee Utd's 2013 accounts stated:

On 5 February 2014 the company entered an agreement to exit its banking arrangements with the Bank of Scotland. The negotiated terms included the payment of £1.45M on entering the agreement with further contingent payments ........
...... The borrowings due to the Bank at the date of entering the arrangement were £4.7M.

The contingent payments were a cut of future transfer fees. Given that United have subsequently sold Gauld and Robertson for good money, the Bank will have achieved more than the up front amount.

In Aberdeen's case the contingent liability is on future transfers and any profit on the sale of Pitoddrie.

[CropleyWasGod]

If you are attending the AGM one obvious question is whether the bank have any recourse to future club revenues as a condition of this settlement deal.

That should put this to bed.
That's a good question. .......I'll try and get it in:)

[Andy74]

Says who?

We know that the bank debt was 6.3m and they owed the holding company 3m.

The holding company will swap 4.5m of debt for equity and still be due 5m.

That was 9.5 they were due. They were only due 3 before the bank deal.

They have loaned Hibs or paid the bank direct over 6m on that basis. Very similar to overall bank debt.

The detail that was provided earlier:

The Club is pleased to confirm that it has agreed a settlement with Bank of Scotland and that the Club is now free of Bank debt. That settlement was funded by new loans provided by the holding company to the Club and by a payment made direct to the Bank. The fixed securities held by the Bank over Easter Road Stadium and the Hibernian Training Centre have been released.

Following the settlement with the Bank, the holding company has agreed to halve the Club’s debt by converting £4.5 million of loans into new ordinary shares in the Club. A formal written resolution to give effect to this will be sent to shareholders with the papers for the AGM. The remaining loans will be refinanced as a single £5m mortgage provided by the holding company on terms acceptable to the Club.

[Caversham Green]

For the avoidance of doubt I'm saying that the payments by other clubs have averaged 30% and the discount given was 70%.

Dundee Utd's 2013 accounts stated:

On 5 February 2014 the company entered an agreement to exit its banking arrangements with the Bank of Scotland. The negotiated terms included the payment of £1.45M on entering the agreement with further contingent payments ........
...... The borrowings due to the Bank at the date of entering the arrangement were £4.7M.

The contingent payments were a cut of future transfer fees. Given that United have subsequently sold Gauld and Robertson for good money, the Bank will have achieved more than the up front amount.

In Aberdeen's case the contingent liability is on future transfers and any profit on the sale of Pitoddrie.

The link provided by Grunt indicates a debt forgiveness of about £1.3m and the newspaper article linked by DaveF suggests that some external financing was available. Also according to Grunt's link Gauld and Robertson were sold after the year end. Hopefully things will be clearer when the 2014 accounts are available.

[McD]

Any word from Kano regarding today's announcements?

[Lurkio]

The link provided by Grunt indicates a debt forgiveness of about £1.3m and the newspaper article linked by DaveF suggests that some external financing was available. Also according to Grunt's link Gauld and Robertson were sold after the year end. Hopefully things will be clearer when the 2014 accounts are available.

According to United's 2013 accounts they issued loan notes worth £2.1M to those who financed the deal, rather than issue shares as in the case of Aberdeen and Kilmarnock. In effect they have swapped one large debt with another smaller debt (sound familiar?).

[Tom Hart RIP]

Just in

Hibernian supporters are demonstrating their willingness to back the vehicle set up to help buy shares in the Club – just days after it launched.

Hibernian Supporters Limited (HSL) was announced a week ago, and already around 700 fans have noted interest on the website – www.hiberniansupporters.co.uk



The response has delighted the Board of HSL – Chairman Kenny MacAskill MSP, and directors Charlie Reid, Jackie McNamara, James Adie, Gordon Smith, Stephen Dunn and Leeann Dempster.



The Board of Hibernian announced on 29 December 2014, that it intended to widen the ownership of the Club by issuing new shares that would enable the Holding Company’s shareholding in Hibernian to be diluted below 50% - with all money raised from supporters through this process going direct to Hibernian to help the Club get back to where all Hibernian supporters would like to see it – at the top end of Scottish football. The money will not be used to buy shares from existing shareholders.



Kenny said: “HSL was only launched a matter of days ago, and we have done no promotion beyond that. In addition, the shares are not going to be available until after the AGM, from February 2nd. Yet despite all of that, we’ve already seen almost 700 people take the time to note interest on our website – and that is a clear demonstration that Hibernian supporters are willing and eager to back the opportunity that is being presented to them.”



HSL is a company limited by guarantee, established with the sole purpose and primary objectives of acquiring shares in Hibernian Football Club Ltd and to hold those shares for the benefit of the supporters of the Club through a binding legal agreement between HSL and Hibernian Football Club that guarantees the transfer of shares on receipt of funds.

In addition, the agreement is explicit that those funds will only be used to help the Club get back to the forefront of Scottish football, and not directed to current shareholders. Supporters contributing to HSL know their money will be used to acquire shares in Hibernian.



Supporters who make contributions will not own shares directly but will own Hibernian Supporters Limited, which in turn will own the shares in the Club. Contributions can be made via a lump sum or on a monthly basis, and an anticipated contribution of £225 – or £18.75 per month – is being sought, although HSL is keen that all supporters get the chance to take part and so those who can afford smaller monthly contributions will also be accommodated.



Supporters can become members of the company once they have contributed and applied to be a member and never lose that status or the rights that go with it. All members will receive a Membership Certificate which is the equivalent of a Share Certificate in a company limited by shares.



Kenny added: “This is designed to be a simple alternative to buying and holding shares directly for supporters who may find it too difficult or arduous to acquire shares directly, as this requires individuals to comply with Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 regulations.



“Supporters are being offered the opportunity to take a controlling interest in their Club, and HSL is one vehicle for achieving this – along with fans who do want to buy shares directly. The more fans who do take part, the greater the voice we will have and indeed if we can achieve a 20% stake we are able to nominate a Club Director.



“We believe it is time for everyone with the best interests of the Club at heart to come together to take this forward to deliver a better future for Hibernian – on and off the pitch – and we would encourage Hibernian fans to continue to show their support.”

[Caversham Green]

According to United's 2013 accounts they issued loan notes worth £2.1M to those who financed the deal, rather than issue shares as in the case of Aberdeen and Kilmarnock. In effect they have swapped one large debt with another smaller debt (sound familiar?).

Right, that starts to make sense on the United figures:

Paid by United £1.45m
Paid by fans in exchange for loan notes £2.1m
Hit taken by bank £1.3m

Roughly equals the £4.8m debt.

I would suspect Killie and Aberdeen would show similar types of transaction.

[HibbyRod]

Why are some folk talking about what other clubs have done, we have reduced our debt this way it makes no difference what other clubs have done to reduce theirs?

Is our debt reduction not good enough now, is having less to pay back not a good thing anymore?

:agree:

I really don't give a jot about who has done this, that, or anything else to get us to the situation effectively we are potentially in now!

Who wrote off this or that doesn't matter. The Bank debt will have been set off within different scenarios, so, who as a Hibs fan really cares if it has happened/happening to clear the Bank debt - they have an agreement which must satisfy them with their overall various football debts, etc.

We have the opportunity now to only be paying off obligations of £5m over 10 years at zero per cent non-interest :greengrin. (i.e., £500k, per annum which can be paid monthly, or, annually - not sure about the timing, but not a problem either way. (Monthly would be best because of the zero % interest rate!)

Additionally, we supporters can pay amounts to get us 51% of the Club for only £2.5 million pounds which can be collected over a period of time, which will give us the assets of the Stadium and East Mains Training Centre/Academy. Therefore, in control of the Club!

What a fantastic opportunity for us Hibees to kick on from there!

What's not to like? :confused: Never mind the naysayers ..... Lets go for it for goodness sake! :thumbsup:

[Eyrie]

Any word from Kano regarding today's announcements?

He's finding it difficult to type with his fingers in his ears whilst endlessly muttering "Not listening".

Or I could be doing him a disservice and he will be along later to offer an opinion that shows he has not only read today's press releases but understands what he has read.

[Lurkio]

Right, that starts to make sense on the United figures:

Paid by United £1.45m
Paid by fans in exchange for loan notes £2.1m
Hit taken by bank £1.3m

Roughly equals the £4.8m debt.

I would suspect Killie and Aberdeen would show similar types of transaction.

I didn't read it that way. I don't believe that United put up any new money themselves.

The £1.45M was financed as a deal with a few fans/investors who put a total of £2.1M into the club. The £2.1M will be repaid in the form of loan notes which will attract interest and be repaid in four installments commencing February 2016.

As you say, we may find out more once the accounts are published.

[Pete]

:agree:

I really don't give a jot about who has done this, that, or anything else to get us to the situation effectively we are potentially in now!

Who wrote off this or that doesn't matter. The Bank debt will have been set off within different scenarios, so, who as a Hibs fan really cares if it has happened/happening to clear the Bank debt - they have an agreement which must satisfy them with their overall various football debts, etc.

We have the opportunity now to only be paying off obligations of £5m over 10 years at zero per cent non-interest :greengrin. (i.e., £500k, per annum which can be paid monthly, or, annually - not sure about the timing, but not a problem either way. (Monthly would be best because of the zero % interest rate!)

Additionally, we supporters can pay amounts to get us 51% of the Club for only £2.5 million pounds which can be collected over a period of time, which will give us the assets of the Stadium and East Mains Training Centre/Academy. Therefore, in control of the Club!

What a fantastic opportunity for us Hibees to kick on from there!

What's not to like? :confused: Never mind the naysayers ..... Lets go for it for goodness sake! :thumbsup:

Exactly. This is only as complicated as you want it to be.

bald men and combs spring to mind.

[Dashing Bob S]

I welcome the club making these statements today. Very positive and helpful, and as folks have said on the other thread, a marked and very welcome change in the communication style.

However, they've pretty much conceded that they've done this is response to questions/criticism from people like Low, Riley, HOH, Buy Hibs etc, so well done to all those people for putting the pressure on the club, however outlandish and provocative.

Let's try and have the grace to see this as win-win all round, instead of trying to score points against either the board or individual groups of fans.

[Mikey]

I welcome the club making these statements today. Very positive and helpful, and as folks have said on the other thread, a marked and very welcome change in the communication style.

However, they've pretty much conceded that they've done this is response to questions/criticism from people like Low, Riley, HOH, Buy Hibs etc, so well done to all those people for putting the pressure on the club, however outlandish and provocative.

Let's try and have the grace to see this as win-win all round, instead of trying to score points against either the board or individual groups of fans.

Aye, but it would be better if the club could get on with the important stuff rather than dealing with lies and misinformation.

[Hibbyradge]

I welcome the club making these statements today. Very positive and helpful, and as folks have said on the other thread, a marked and very welcome change in the communication style.

However, they've pretty much conceded that they've done this is response to questions/criticism from people like Low, Riley, HOH, Buy Hibs etc, so well done to all those people for putting the pressure on the club, however outlandish and provocative.

Let's try and have the grace to see this as win-win all round, instead of trying to score points against either the board or individual groups of fans.

Congratulations? Pressure?

The club's plans are exactly the same as they were before the disgraceful slurs were publicised by certain people.

Why congratulate them? What has the "pressure" achieved that a polite letter couldn't have?

Hibs haven't buckled under any "pressure". They've merely answered a few questions, which no doubt would have been answered at the agm.

Congratulations my erchie.

[matty_f]

Congratulations? Pressure?

The club's plans are exactly the same as they were before the disgraceful slurs were publicised by certain people.

Why congratulate them? What has the "pressure" achieved that a polite letter couldn't have?

Hibs haven't buckled under any "pressure". They've merely answered a few questions, which no doubt would have been answered at the agm.

Congratulations my erchie.

Totally agree. DBS, usually agree with you on most things but can't agree that HoH should get any praise or recognition for what has been nothing more than an ill-informed smear campaign.

[grunt]

Any word from Kano regarding today's announcements?Apparently he was just getting warmed up. Him and Pia congratulating each other on getting a response from the club. It's rather pathetic.

[marinello59]

Apparently he was just getting warmed up. Him and Pia congratulating each other on getting a response from the club. It's rather pathetic.


Power to the People. :greengrin

[Dashing Bob S]

Congratulations? Pressure?

The club's plans are exactly the same as they were before the disgraceful slurs were publicised by certain people.

Why congratulate them? What has the "pressure" achieved that a polite letter couldn't have?

Hibs haven't buckled under any "pressure". They've merely answered a few questions, which no doubt would have been answered at the agm.

Congratulations my erchie.

Didn't say they 'buckled' under pressure but responded to it appropriately by very helpfully addressing the points raised by Low, Riley, HOH, Buy Hibs people on this board etc etc.

[Dashing Bob S]

Aye, but it would be better if the club could get on with the important stuff rather than dealing with lies and misinformation.

Well, hopefully they can now. It was a decent, timely and temperate response- not used to that from the board, so well done Hibs.

[Dashing Bob S]

Totally agree. DBS, usually agree with you on most things but can't agree that HoH should get any praise or recognition for what has been nothing more than an ill-informed smear campaign.

Well the board has previous for non communication, and has managed the club poorly over the last seven years. Perhaps the lesson for them to take from this is that in such circumstances some people will believe the very worst, and it's best to refute their wilder speculations in an assertive but polite manner.

It's not so long ago that every utterance from the board was shot down on this forum.

[Beefster]

Didn't say they 'buckled' under pressure but responded to it appropriately by very helpfully addressing the points raised by Low, Riley, HOH, Buy Hibs people on this board etc etc.

It's a bit like NASA having to put evidence out that the moon landings actually happened because some conspiracy theorists claim publicly that a flag on the moon is flapping in a non-existent breeze or the shadows are wrong in photos.

Personally, I'd rather the CEO was working at improving the club rather than having to release lengthy statements every time some publicity-hungry individual or mob ask some outlandish questions.

[BroxburnHibee]

If your all wondering what one of the main voices behind hands on Hibs will be doing this match day he will be scouring Dalkeith looking for me and another guy so he can bury us. 😄They should be nowhere near our club.

Are you saying you're actually being threatened by these people?