Can BDO request the direct debit cash from the Foundation of chumps before exiting administration if money is drying up or has that been safe guarded to be used only by them when they exit admin?
Printable View
Can BDO request the direct debit cash from the Foundation of chumps before exiting administration if money is drying up or has that been safe guarded to be used only by them when they exit admin?
Safe guarded until afterQuote:
Originally Posted by Inch Hibs
I suppose they can ask but dipping out of FOHs funds will leave FOH short for when they need it.
Also it'd just be proof that Hearts are not a viable business if they need another 'donation'
I wonder if the media would hold the same view if some insignificant Lithuanian team had pumped a Scottish bank for £70m of their money? Would they be as sympathetic to their plight?Quote:
Originally Posted by QMU-1875
Surely when the diddies signed up they must have been advised this money was for when they came out of admin, not to try and buy their way out of admin?Quote:
Originally Posted by Inch Hibs
I have always been a little unsure about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Inch Hibs
The explanation on FoH's website says that:
The funds will be used for:
The financing of the purchase of the majority shareholding in HoMplc; and
Other legitimate purposes/projects, subject to board and membership approval, which will assist in ensuring the financial stability and/or the betterment of HoMplc.
http://www.foundationofhearts.org/faqs/
That "other legitimate purposes" clause seems to give them a fair bit of leeway to use the funds in other ways, such as propping up the club this season... "subject to board and membership approval".
Forgive my ignorance on this topic. I've tried to read as many pages of this thread as I can, but 1237 pages is just too many for me to digest.
Can someone explain to me who actually owns Tynecastle the ground? Is the ground ownership part of FoH's CVA agreement, or are they simply looking to take over the running of the club, but won't own the ground they're playing on?
If Ubig & Ukio are both in liquidation, are the liquidators for these companies looking to sell the ground to recoup money for their creditors?
http://i39.tinypic.com/xaymi0.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
Cheers mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot
Hearts own Tynecastle.Quote:
Originally Posted by greiang
If the CVA goes through, Hearts will still own it. FOH will be the owners of Hearts. That purchase will have been financed by the backers, who will be repaid (in theory) by the Direct Debits.
I would expect that the finance will be secured over Tynecastle, so that if it all goes Pete Tong again the backers can take it over.
So many loopholes as their track record of avoiding the ***** tells me if they wanted they would use that money.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomoseven
These securities don't appear to be worth the paper they are written on. Did UKIO not have a security over Tynecastle to the value of £6.8m?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Another thing I've never understood is why they where allowed to go I to administration and bump loads of companies/charities without being told to sell assets ie the crumbling ****hole to raise funds? It's surely not right they bump loads of companies and still own assets worth a few million?
Had they done that, UKIO would have got all the money that the sale raised. They have security over Tynecastle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Inch Hibs
Since Vlad stopped supporting Hearts financially, I can't think of a credible scenario whereby the small creditors would have been paid.
The difference with this one is that the security will "only" be for a couple of million. That loan should be covered by the value of Tynie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
I see, fair do's. Why didn't ukios admin or temp admin demand this then? Seems like they just say back said zip now getting paid peanuts?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Had they demanded that, ie by calling in their security, HMFC would have gone into administration immediately. So the end result would have been the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Inch Hibs
Should have done it anyway IMO :)Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Actually, I am thinking that it wouldn't have been administration, it would have been liquidation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Inch Hibs
Only they can say why they didn't do it. Perhaps they thought that they would get the full value of their security. In hindsight, that may have been a poor choice.
Iv an inkling that the administration process is going to drag on for a while yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Inch Hibs
About the subsequent points penalty.
I've just had a look at what happened to Dunfermline. It looks like they took their hit last season which in effect put them down.
In the close season, July, their CVA was agreed and they were on their way out of administration but didn't actually do so until December. There was no points deduction this season.
So. No further forward there then unless an agreed CVA is taken as that 'exiting administration event' and they escaped the further points deduction that way. I do seem to recall there being a bit of a hiccup when they had to go back to court and a further points deduction was mentioned but I'm not sure how official that all was.
With regard to the UBIG shares, and possibly the UKIO ones. Am I right in thinking that some of these shares will have been acquired in the debt for equity swaps? £20+ million worth?
Another hazy memory is that this was a bit dodgy so perhaps how these came about will be the subject of more legal scrutiny than might otherwise have been in the already #allverycomplicated legal proceedings.
A dodgy UK company, the yams; dodgy Lithuanian companies; dodgy share transfer. Anyone any idea which country any court case would be heard in?
My understanding is that the court case will be heard in Dodge City.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Jack, Dunfermline May have been treated under old SFL rules which no longer exist. New SPFL rules indicate the Yams would have to exit admin to escape further penalty.
This is what I don't quite understand. They seemed to have had the time to exercise that hindsight realise that most return will come from a liquidation but chose not to go down that route. Why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Good good :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Governor
Very pleasing, how will Scotlands best crop of youngster cope with such heart ache? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by The Governor
Just been looking at how the updated SPFL rules define a "season"
[*] Season means the period of the year commencing on the date of the first League Match in a Season and ending on the date of the last League Match in the same Season or otherwise as determined by the Board and which excludes the Close Season;
[*] Close Season means the period of the year outside the Season
the other bit of interest is
[*] Where an Insolvency Event or in the event that such Insolvency Event is part of an Insolvency Process that process, continues and/or is subsisting during a second or later Season then, for each such second or later Season, during the whole or part of which such Insolvency Event or Insolvency Process is continuing and/or subsisting, the Club concerned shall be deducted 15 points and shall start each such second or later Season in the relevant Division on minus 15 points.
the bit in bold gives me the impression that the Yams have until the start of the new season to get out of Admin :rolleyes:
if you can be bothered, here's the link http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__ther...1388495541.pdf
A few theories have been floated on here:-Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse
1. they have done their homework, and deduced that they won't get any more in a liquidation.
2. they have not done their homework, and have been "persuaded" that they won't get any more in a liquidation.
3. they have known for some time that liquidation is the most likely route, in which case they might get more; approving the CVA is just a political move to make them look less like the bad boys.
I'm not sure which I believe. I'd like to think that 1 is the most likely, but then I'm not privy to the way these guys think.
All the Ukio/UBIG Yam shares came into existence through debt for equity swaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
The original shares that Vlad bought from Deans, Pieman and the simple fans were held by a Company called Heart of Midlothian 2005 Ltd.
That Company has been struck-off and those shares have " Fallen to the Crown "
Your impression is correct. A points deduction will only be applicable if they are still in Admin at the start of the 2014/15 seasonQuote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf