Printable View
Don't think it makes a lot of difference - but certainly won't harm his interests give the election winning parties are more pro-Russian than the previous government. Lithuania's economic problems stem from the fact that people can always make more money working in other EU countries than in Lithuania (unless it's playing for Hearts :wink:), so they have seen a massive decline in their population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20115241Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
"The cost of the squad that won silverware [the Scottish Cup] last season is £8m and our income is just short of £7m. Also, we need to speak about the cost of running the business, running Tynecastle - that adds to the gap and there are no realistic chances of covering this gap by normal income. We've exhausted pretty much all possibilities."
:fibber:
My feelings exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate Dan
As Caversham Green says however I suggest opening this link and reading page 18.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seanduff
http://view.vcab.com/?vcabid=gheSelg...2%2015:19:02-6
Rangers ****ed.
Hearts going the same way.
In hope this is our ground hog day.
ENDOF
If their 400,000 worldwide fanbase cough up £5.00 each they will have £250k left.
I know the tax tribunal meet next month but how long will it take for them to issue a decision and how many appeals will Hearts have? The Rangers one seems to have gone on for ages.
All it needs is R.I.H at the bottom :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate Dan
Hearts must think their fans are zipped up the back.....oh wait :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by Peevemor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peevemor
How does that sit with the insistance that the share issue won't cover the tax bill?Quote:
Originally Posted by yam's propaganda material
Strangely enough, it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
Starting to believe that the end is truly nigh.
GG
It says that if the share issue is a success they might just have enough to last the season but if the tax case hits they'll be f***ed anyway. :na na:Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
... and the EEN says this is "reassuring". :confused:
Well, I suppose it's reassuring for us. :wink::aok:
Maybe one of the financial whizzes will be able to answer this.
Just had a wee look at the brochure out of interest and I noticed that they're offering incentives to buy shares, like free tickets to matches, hospitality, signed shirts and free season tickets. Are they allowed to do this?
In financial services there's rules about gifts in return for business, could this be viewed in the same way?
Those jokers have been living way beyond their means for years, playing players that they could nowhere near afford and they have gotten away with this cheating for years. Finally its caught up with them and they deserve everything they get. We have the same carry on with hearts every year and now its time something is actually done about it.
I wont miss them. I want them to go the exact same way as their pals from Glasgow did.
Rot in hell jambos :fenlon:giruy:
Tick Tock . . .
:brokenyam:
Also for the financial gurus out there. There is a lot of talk of admin and Vlad leasing Tynecastle back to the new entity. Given that it seems clear that Ukio/Ubig need cash quickly, why would admin be better than liquidation and selling the ground? They may not get the full asking price but they would get a lump sum now.
:faf::faf::faf:
Not sure if you have the facts correct there Mo.Quote:
Originally Posted by supershotmo
I was lead to understand that the 400,000 fans related to those in the Edinburgh area alone and their worldwide fan base will be many, many times in excess of that.
Let's not forget that they really are a BIG team.
:rolleyes:
IMO, administration is very unlikely. If there is one, the administrators will come to a very quick decision that there is no alternative to liquidation.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Thank you, pretty much what I thought and I really don't understand why they are not seeing that themselves unless it is blind emotion/optimism.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
:ostrich:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
As Cav has already pointed out they do not seem to be able to produce up to date figures. He is saying, in one breath, that they have made a profit last season without the requirement of debt forgiveness and in another he is spouting figures which make no sense. If he is telling us that last season they spent £8m on wages that would be an increase from 2011 (£7.121m) despite their cost cutting. Income "just short of £7m" sounds suspiciously like the £6.915m they managed in 2010-2011.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
I would expect that by now he would have accurate figures to hand and, if the figures provided by Fedovatas are remotely accurate then there is not a hope in hell they made a profit in 2011-2012 without considerable outside assistance.
The brochure also lists operating costs of just over £3million.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
So:
Turnover: £7M
Squad Costs: £8M
Operating costs: £3M
Possible back tax bill: £1 3/4M
Bank Says "No more"
Now, I'm no financial genius, but I think this means they're royally, truly, hilariously rodgered to the hilt. Death approaches. I'm looking forward to some of the Vlad outbursts, and also to seeing just how long the Vlad loyalists over on ostrichback still worship at the alter of Mr Romanov.
Popcorn oot.
If it came to a CVA, I wonder if they would be asked to pay 51p in the pound. :-)
I think this is slightly different. Buying the shares makes them part-owners of the club so the incentives are just giving the owners preferential treatment - the existing small shareholders might have grounds for complaint if they don't get the same perks but I don't think there are any significant legal implications. If the shareholders were also directors or employees there may be some tax implications, but they aren't so there's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Twiglet
I think that's the killing argument, but one thing that crossed my mind regarding the tax liability.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Tynie is covered by a fixed charge so couldn't be sold without the consent of UBIG and that part of UBIG's debt wouldn't fall into the CVA vote. If the balance of UBIG's debt did stand as an ordinary creditor they might have enough to vote through a CVA thereby reducing the tax liability to pennies in the pound. It would reduce UBIG's debt as well but that is irrecoverable in any case. It probably wouldn't work as things are currently arranged, but....
Are you sure?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The biggest issue in the Rangers situation was that HMRC were owed the majority of the debt, and as such their rejection of the CVA was what resulted in liquidation.
In this case UKIO are owed the majority of the debt (probably close to £40m by now) so if they accepted a CVA would HMRC have to abide by it?
The CVA could include a bid of £15m for the assets from a little known (Lituanian) businessman.
After the CVA goes through you suddenly find Hearts receiving a £15m loan from UKIO (with Tynecastle as security) and the merry-go-round begins again.
Obviously UKIO would have to write-off at least half of their debt, but there's usually a "debt forgiveness" write off each season anyway.
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Twa Cairpets
Over the last three years published accounts, even if they had paid £0 wages, they would still have lost £100k. Their running costs, not including wages, are almost £8m per season.
The drawback is that UBIG's debt is secured by a fixed charge. That makes them a preferred creditor and takes them out of a CVA vote. If they have been planning for an administration any debt incurred since 30 June 2011 might be due to another company and be unsecured, giving them a vote. The real problem though, is that HoMFC are not a going concern without UBIG's support so an exit from administration would prove difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
I think we should carry a coffin to tynie before the next derby just like what the Celtic fans did when they went to ibrox. That would be hilarious. There is a YouTube video of it 👍 http://youtu.be/NtDVTBTKvuk
That's absolutely bonkers considering they still need to build a new stand and don't own there own training ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
:faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
If they are due £30m+ but only £18m is secured (and even that is hopeful for Tynecastle and land) would the outstanding £12m+ not put them as a creditor in a CVA attempt?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Not questioning your knowledge, just curious as to how a company due £30m+ would be ignored in a CVA attempt.
Question away, because I don't know this one for sure. The way I see it though, is that the asset doesn't have a set value until it's sold and the debt keeps moving so the arrangement is that the whole of the debt is secured on the whole of the asset and if the creditor is daft enough to let the debt exceed the value of the asset then that excess is at risk. In administration, if HoMFC were keeping Tynie both the asset and the debt would be kept out of the picture completely. If they were to sell Tynie then the unpaid balance of the debt would fall into the unsecured creditors pot, but at that stage continuation would seem unlikely since their main asset was gone so a CVA wouldn't apply.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Could they sell Tynie as a "going concern" with guaranteed rental income though, in the way you might sell any other rented property? The sale of Tynie would be deducted from UBIG debt (lets say £30m-£15m sale) and they would then become an unsecured creditor in a CVA attempt. The CVA would be £15m-£1.75m in UBIG favour on the remaining assets (players etc.).Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
The Ukio Bankas (as opposed to UBIG ) have just announced losses of 44 million Litas about £11 million for the first 9 months of 2012.
Don't look like the Bank is going to bail the Yams out.
But if UBIG has a standard security over the stadium and a floating charge over all the Company assets would'nt UBIG be the first to get their debts settled leaving nothing for HMRC or any other mugs , sorry, creditors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Hats off to you lot that understand all this stuff. I would rather set myself on fire than take the time to learn it.....
They'd theoretically be able to sell all the company's assets (assuming buyers could be found for the whole lot), but that would only recoup part of their exposure. That's as far as their priority goes - they would have to claim for the balance as unsecured creditors, just like all the others, so I suppose it depends how ready a market there is for the assets as to whether they will simply go down this "closing the door" route.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
This whole share issue is just wrong imo. Vladimir Romanov - a millionaire is asking a bunch of peasants from gorgie to give him money and has basically admitted that anyone who invests will not get a penny back. Surely if people have any disposable income they should be giving it to a charity, not some bent crook from Easter Europe who already has millions. There's more important things in life.
Had a look over on broke back and they've started a thread for people who have bought shares already. Congratulating each other on being belters. One guy says that he's already bought some and will be buying more for his family as Christmas presents. I seriously don't know whether to laugh or cry. "Here kids look what I got you for Christmas! **** all and it cost me hundreds!!" Fudd
Shoot me down if this rubbish, but are shareholders not liable financially for any debts incurred by a plc?
Could that mean the 400,000 shareholders will be asked to stump up in the future?
No, unless they've provided some sort of guarantee for the debts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
EQuote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
Hope the investing:lolyam::lolyam: yams have read the small print
One things for sure these share offer brochures were not cheap. I wonder if the printer got cash up front.
Also, they would have taken some time to put together so its been some months in the planning. The late wages was a ploy to concentrate Yam minds.
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ab...48/compdetails
Just noticed the Company that is looking for supporters cash can't even keep up to date with their annual returns.Should have been lodged at companies house by 19th September.
Its a 2 minute job with a £ 13 lodging fee,that is if you know who is willing to be listed as a company director of that lot.
Can you make a share offer if your statutory returns are out of date ? :confused:
Yes, you can. However, were you a potential investor, would you invest in a company that couldn't keep its statutory duties?:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
No. They key is PLC (Public Limited Liability Company). Shareholders are only liable to the value of their shares.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
In any event Hearts are no longer a PLC since Vlad took them off the London Stock Exchange if I recall correctly. The same provision applies to an Ltd (Limited Liability Company).
Since according to the Accounts, UBIG are financially backing Hearts so they could have some liability in the vent of a liquidation. I would not fancy the chances of any cereditor getting any cash.
Yes they are.....http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ab...48/compdetailsQuote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
I can't see that UBIG would have any liability. They will make a loss on their investment, though.
As Dickens' Micawber said: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen shillings and sixpence, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery."Quote:
Originally Posted by Twa Cairpets
I think you're all missing the important factor here. Maroonsevco don't have the 13 big ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Anyone know if Vlad actually took delivery of the £17m jet he was reported to have bought last year. Did he turn up in it for his trip here last weekend?
Would be a right slap in the face for the jumbos if he did :na na:
Now that would be funny. Then a helicopter to the centre circle at the Wee Pink Wonga Dome, quaffing the best champagne with a chick on each arm. Meanwhile the tramps are raiding their bairns piggy banks to keep their beloved club alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...v-buys-1096179Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
Credit where it's due - HMRC are having an absolute stormer this year.
I'll believe this when I see it.
There's been so many false dawns before to believe that this will actually happen and so many rumours that they were going to the wall and going into administration etc.
If HMRC win the case against them, I might start to believe that they are finished but until then all we can really do is get the prayer mats out. :pray:
FTH :giruy:
If that is the case then why have the auditors been signing off the accounts for a clearly insolvent company for the last four years?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Does the implicit support that UBIG have been giving Hearts bear no liability (apart from the initial purchase price and all theose debt for equity exchanges)?
They could do that but it would depend on turning HoMFC into a business that makes enough cash profit to service the rent and if that was a possibility they would be better taking the £1.75m hit and just doing it. The more the external debt increases the more likely (or less unlikely) administration becomes, but I think it's a long way from being viable right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
You're right, I was overlooking the floating charge. I would think though, that administration (as opposed to liquidation) would look to keep as many of the assets as possible and seek fresh investment to pay off the creditors - the secured creditors still wouldn't have a vote in the CVA, and even if the assets were all sold that would reduce UBIG's voting power in a CVA proposal.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
100 pager this.
This always irks me a bit. Everything I've posted on this subject has been based on a genuine analysis of their situation using my professional knowledge and experience - it has never just been wishful thinking. I've also always tried to explain the reasons behind my comments as clearly as I could. The one and only factor that has kept HoMFC going has been Romanov's willingness to throw money at them for far longer than I or many others expected. He has made it very clear that that has now stopped and I can't see any form of rescue for them unless he changes his mind. I'll happily debate the possibilities with anyone who can offer a reasonable argument, but "we've heard it all before" just won't do.Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibee
I realise that it's been going on for years, but every incident has had subtle differences from the previous one that suggested they were getting closer and closer to the S-trap and this looks like the worst so far. If you think it's not going to happen then give us good reasons why you think that.
BTW that wasn't a direct go at you FH - I don't think you usually post that sort of comment.
More funny Yam doom.
http://m.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/s...plan-1-2603507
The audit report carries a very significant qualification. It refers to UBIG's commitment to provide sufficient future funding, but states that the auditors have been unable to verify whether UBIG was in a position to provide that funding. Tha accounting policy note also says that the directors have written confirmation from UBIG that it would provide funding for the foreseeable future. The foreseeable future is generally accepted as meaning 12 months from the date of signing the accounts so UBIG might arguably have some liability for debts incurred up to 5 April 2013. However, if UBIG has subsequently advised the directors that the funding was being withdrawn then any debts incurred since that notice would have been incurred recklessly by the directors and it would more likely be their personal liability. It would be up to a court to decide though.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
I am not sure of the points you are making.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
1. Cav has covered the question of the audit report.
2. The support that UBIG have been giving Hearts does bear a liability. The liability is the risk that UBIG will not recover the money that they have invested.
A wee word of advice to everyone. Pay attention to what CG, CWG and PTS have to say on the subject :wink:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
The way I could see it work for the Liths would be this,
Enter administration with their own version of the Duffers appointed, UBIG Mark 2 offers to buy the HOMFC assets for a sum way over any other consortium might offer, but less than UBIG Mark 1 has security for.
Ownership is transferred to UBIG Mark 2, and cash to Mark 1, Leaving UBIG with the assets at no cost and the other creditors mainly HMRC with nowt.
Bit of a Baldrick type plan, and a lot of work to dump a circa £ 3 million debt I know.
Think you're spot on and the bit in bold is very much the key point. Exactly what kind of doom the Yams end up with is still very much down to Vlad's whims. Although he's stopped pumping money in at insane levels, he has still been willing to write off huge chunks of debt. If his exit was done in a Yam friendly way, writing off the bulk of the remaining debt and allowing them to keep Tiny, they could still come out relatively unscathed, albeit they'd have to return to the real world. However, if that was his plan why hasn't he done it already? At the other extreme, he could get fed up, pull the plug and they'd be toast. I suspect the outcome will be somewhere in the middle. Hearts continue with most of the debt gone but as tenants in their own midden, still clinging to a council super stadium as the way out of their troubles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I can understand the plan and the higher the external debt the more viable it becomes but it supposes that UBIG want to keep the money lavvy that is Heart of Midlothian plc. Every indication is that they want rid but can't find someone daft enough to buy it so right now a straight liquidation would be a better business move than administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
I posted on the pm board that my best bet had been that he would keep them going in gradual decline but that changed when this share offer came up. Mikey summarised my lengthy comments into "It's a donation" earlier in the thread and he was spot on - Mr Romanov has got the begging bowl out because it would appear that he doesn't want to give HoMFC anything at all. £1.79m isn't going to go far even if they avoid this tax liability and they're already talking about another share issue next year. It has all the hallmarks of panic management and even if it does work this time future share issues are bound to produce diminishing returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Yeah, but thats what happens when the loan sharks get their claws into you, they keep coming back for more, and more_ _ _ :greengrin
Apologies if it's already been answered in the thread - but is the share offer a sale of existing shares or a new issue which would dilute the existing holdings ?
It's new shares.Quote:
Originally Posted by haagsehibby
I read it as 10% of existing shares.Quote:
Originally Posted by haagsehibby
I stand corrected. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Cav beat me to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by haagsehibby
If it were existing shares, then the cash would go to the current shareholders. This way, it's new cash coming into the company.
As you say, it's a dilution of the worth of the current shareholdings. What are turds now will be slightly soggy ones.
Cav, unlike you I'm still hoping they get a stay of execution though I am looking forward to Hearts demise. I hope it takes another 3 years simply because in that time we are missing out on at least 1 if not 2 Category A games whilst the Ibrox club remain in the lower divisions. Were Hearts to go the same way that would mean we may only have 1, but more than likely 2, Category A games a season against Celtic. That would hurt us financially without doubt.
So to me our ideal scenario would be for Hearts to limp along drawing us in both the league and Scottish Cups for the next 3 seasons whilst we run up a number of record matching or breaking 7 or 8 goal victories. (Maybe throw in a few last minute winners along the way when we have been outplayed for the majority of the game just as a tease.)
Hearts, by the end, are even more financially rooked on their average home crowd of 4,000 approach us with a begging bowl asking to move in with us whilst they sort themselves out. The board consider it over the summer building their hopes up then say no thanks. Hearts are outvoted for a place in the league and Spartans or Edinburgh City get their place.
Oh the squirming would be wonderful.
Somewhere in this thread, I described the fan trait of indiscriminately and irrationally referring to Hibs in times of stress and discomfort as a sort of dummy tit or comfort blanket. It has even spread to the Jambo media. In this morning's Jamboman, in three seperate stories by three different journos, on one page, there is reference to " the Tynecastle side's 5-1 destruction of Edinburgh rivals....". ; " leading Hearts to Scottish Cup glory" and " Heart's 5-1 hammering of their bitter city rivals in May's one sided Scottish Cup Final ". No coincidence and unbelievably, not one of the articles was penned by Bathgate himself ...... yes there's Jambo strength in depth in the good old Scotsman. This infatuation with us is going to grow arms and legs in the next few months as they slip into the abyss. Cold and temporary comfort methinks.
Thanks for the answers. But give what you've stated above, how does that square with the Hearts statement that the aim is "to potentially step towards a supporter-owned football club" ? Since, to my ill-trained eye, I can't see how an annual issue of new shares could ever achieve this aim.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The word "potentially" is a powerful one :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by haagsehibby
I suppose that the plan (this week's one, anyway) is to raise the cash to pay HMRC in the short-term. When that particular storm is over, and the hordes see how successful that plan was, they will flock in their dozens to buy the rest of the shares off Vlad, UBIG and the others.
:cb
I might be wrong but I could have sworn I seen a post on facebook from someone i know who is already a shareholder at hearts saying they have an AGM tonight, if so will be interesting to see what comes from it :cb
I thought Romanov was offloading some of UBIGs shares?
From Stuart Bathgates article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=WIoHSu5v1Mo
Quote:
Hearts want to sell ten per cent of the shares owned by Ubig, the parent company in which Vladimir Romanov has a controlling interest, for £1.78m.
(Daily ******. I know. Sorry)Quote:
The Hearts owner is offering supporters the chance to buy 11 per cent of his 98 per cent shareholding and hopes to raise around £1.8million to keep the club in working capital.
Not familiar with UBIG's accounts, but can they allow the "asset" of £28M Hearts Debt to disappear from their accounts without making them insolvent too?
Avatar changed . Thats all .
Hell mend them. The purchase of their comfort blanket (in the form of a big win over us last year) effectively means nowt as they slip into the abyss. Their arrogance has probably cost them their club..................Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
so..........let them sneer all they want. They're headed only one way......and we're going the other way.
:flag:
Tom English webchat on Hearts at midday if anyone is interested .
http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/webchats
love it! :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Treadstone
I don't think the money is to pay HMRC but as working capital to keep them going till something turns up.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
By the time you add interest and penalties, HMRC will be after much more than £1.7m and it will likely take a few months for the Tribunal decision to be announced.
i can't wait till wages day this month to see what happens next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treadstone
Had a look at that doc - laughed where it says that the pulling power of the club was best demonstrated when Hearts entertained Barcelona at Murrayfield in 2007 in a crowd of 57k :crazy:
haha yeah no one was there to see messi, Xavi and Ineista.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs Class
Its a joke they use 1914 as a marketing tool in their packages of shares. The 1914 package costs £10,000. I doubt anyone will take them up.
Packages
Maroon package- £110
Tynecastle £ 275
1874 £550
Robbo £1100
Tommy Walker £2750
Terrible Trio £5500
1914- £11000
Heart of Midlothian- £25000
A bit more detail on the tax case (from the HMFC point of view)
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...ania-1-2605333
Problem still remains of how they can justify that 50/50 split of wages being taxed in Lithuania and UK, when the two clubs have common ownership.
Does that dilute the HMRC case and strengthen the yams hand, in your opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
.Net resident financial whizzkids :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
This thread would not be the same without their knowledgable input
Same for the Huns thread as well of course
The Revenue will have a watertight case. they usually always do. Hertz better be ready!
IMO, it adds nothing to anyone's case. The journalist is guessing at what the exact issue is. "an outstanding amount of £1.75m in unpaid tax, which may relate to other benefits given to any of the 19 players loaned from Kaunas ".... means nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
HMRC will not say what the issue is. HMFC will make (probably biased) statements as to what it is. The rest of us (myself included) will speculate on what it is.
What Mrowiec says (about who is responsible for the tax) is contrary to what Robertson said at the weekend. And both are reasonable stances to take. I'll therefore reserve judgement.... and continue to speculate :greengrin
I almost fell off my chair there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia Na Eir
Sorry, that's just not the case.
Cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I forgot it was BAnderson who wrote that article so that eliminates any possible journalistic integrity attached to it.
I guess I'll sit back and watch what happens. Seems to be all anyone can do.
you forgot laugh :hilariousQuote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
Im no expert at all in regards to this and all i am basining my post on is guessing what I think might have happened here.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
Hearts pay half wages through hearts
Kaunas pay half wages through Kaunas
the case which im guesing hmrc are chasing is this bit - 'which may relate to other benefits given to any of the 19 players loaned from Kaunas'
I wonder if any bonuses, win bonus, goal bonuses, clean sheet bonuses etc have been paid into the kaunas side of things therefore avoiding the UK tax on such earnings. I do belive that alot of there players wages and the reason the wage bill was so high was due to bonuses so I guess my question to the experts (cav/cropley) on here is - If hearts players loaned from kaunas were paid any additonal income through there Lith banks is this illeagal and does it sound plausable as to what the bill is for?
What an cutting edge piece that was....dig up an ex loanee and take his word for it that tax was paid on his wages. I don't think it even addresses the point in that HMRC are saying UK tax is due on all wages not just the UK paid piece. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Vlad must be really really tempted just to pull the plug and bolt.....
I assumed all Hibbies were on automatic laugh :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Desperate Dan
If they get hit with the tax bill they should make Campbell Ogilvie pay it.
It's not illegal. However, if these players were HMFC employees (and I am still not convinced that they were) then any bonuses etc would be subject to UK tax (however and wherever they were paid) and should be put through the PAYE system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibee87
It's not as blatant as I thought it might be, but it's the same problem. What rationale was there for having HMFC pay half the wages, rather than a lesser or greater share?Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
Hearts have to prove (IMO) that the deals with Kaunas were done at arm's length. That's going to be very difficult, particularly in the cases where Kaunas signed a player and then immediately "loaned" him to HMFC. Protesting that they have all this paperwork documenting how the payments were made isn't going to cut it.