Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stonewall

Also only one of the clubs was a front for laundering money.

---

You are surely not suggesting the " Heart and Soul of Edinburgh " were anyway involved in this ! :greengrin


http://www.lrytas.lt/-13589573191357...m#.Uw28Ic6PPrk

Now bragging they have reached 8k didys

What happened to the other 320 thousand?

No very big team are they?

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastCalderHibby

Should they now be known as a charity with over 7000 donations each month


Attachment 12098

---

They're sponsored by furniture polish? Since when do Jambos clean house?

I haven't been following this thread in detail (tbh I find a lot of it hard to take in), but it seems to me that the morons are farther away from a satisfactory settlement (from THEIR point of view) than they were when they went into administration?

How soon before Mr Jackson issues an appeal for all Jambettes to rally to the cause by selling themselves on the streets of Sighthill and Parkhead?

Surely that's the very least they should do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HIBERNIAN-0762

Now bragging they have reached 8k didys

What happened to the other 320 thousand?

No very big team are they?

:rolleyes:

---

You mean 392,000? They've got 8000, not 80,000. Let's not give them more credit than they are due.

I don't understand why 8000 is seen as impressive either. That tells me that there are still thousands who attend their home games who aren't signed up.

They took 25,000 to the 2012 final. where are the rest of them?

They have 56,000 people on their mailing list. Why are 48,000 of them making a conscious decision every month not to donate?

Nobody is asking the important questions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajillions

You mean 392,000? They've got 8000, not 80,000. Let's not give them more credit than they are due.

I don't understand why 8000 is seen as impressive either. That tells me that there are still thousands who attend their home games who aren't signed up.

They took 25,000 to the 2012 final. where are the rest of them?

They have 56,000 people on their mailing list. Why are 48,000 of them making a conscious decision every month not to donate?

Nobody is asking the important questions

---

could it be they all think that a knight in shining armour will come to rescue them in the last minute,there must be a couple of millionaire jambos who watch closely if it came to the 11th hour would they step in

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajillions

You mean 392,000? They've got 8000, not 80,000. Let's not give them more credit than they are due.

I don't understand why 8000 is seen as impressive either. That tells me that there are still thousands who attend their home games who aren't signed up.

They took 25,000 to the 2012 final. where are the rest of them?

They have 56,000 people on their mailing list. Why are 48,000 of them making a conscious decision every month not to donate?

Nobody is asking the important questions

---

Simple. Its because they're not hard core.
They don't attend on a regular basis, because for them, its something to enjoy. Like a day away at Hampden.
Their priorities lie elsewhere (perhaps at home).
They can see the bigger picture and can read the writing on the wall.


****, I almost convinced myself, there. Its because they're ****ing losers and overblown bags of hot air

One for the attendance-size-obsessed maroon dafties that look in on this thread to bear in mind:

You've still got less DD sign ups than us poor wee hobos average attendance that you like to ridicule.

Big team, aye?

It does seem strange that they can sell 10,500 season tickets but only 8k pledges.

Would surely make sense adding a pledge into the Season Ticket deal ?

Also will be interesting to see the ST sales next season and no one has explained what happens if the pledges take a drop...what is plan B / C - long term it's just not sustainable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Hackett

Without going over for a look, I'll take a stab in the dark and name that poster as ThisIsMyStory, or Wee Donald Ford, or TOTT or Hen Broon or any of the other countless names he's used in the years he's spent haunting those stories. A man with too much time on his hands and too many fantasies flying around in his heid. A definite candidate for sectioning

---

Not forgetting 'Rolland' or 'Tristan' or .................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenStar

It does seem strange that they can sell 10,500 season tickets but only 8k pledges.

Would surely make sense adding a pledge into the Season Ticket deal ?

Also will be interesting to see the ST sales next season and no one has explained what happens if the pledges take a drop...what is plan B / C - long term it's just not sustainable.

---

I think that would makes the pledges subject to Tax. The FOH is being run like a charity just now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajillions

I think that would makes the pledges subject to Tax. The FOH is being run like a charity just now.

---

They would have to pay V.A.T. on the "pledge" part as well as the season ticket so that would cost them money.

Firstly that is a great idea and secondly Jambos paying V.A.T.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenStar

It does seem strange that they can sell 10,500 season tickets but only 8k pledges.

Would surely make sense adding a pledge into the Season Ticket deal ?

Also will be interesting to see the ST sales next season and no one has explained what happens if the pledges take a drop...what is plan B / C - long term it's just not sustainable.

---

Kids can't set up a DD so I would think the balance between the 8000 pledges and 10,500 ST's will mean that most adult ST holders are pledging the rest will be kids ST's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajillions

You mean 392,000? They've got 8000, not 80,000. Let's not give them more credit than they are due.

I don't understand why 8000 is seen as impressive either. That tells me that there are still thousands who attend their home games who aren't signed up.

They took 25,000 to the 2012 final. where are the rest of them?

They have 56,000 people on their mailing list. Why are 48,000 of them making a conscious decision every month not to donate?

Nobody is asking the important questions

---

Aye your right there Baj, my mental arithmetic is bloody hopeless...:greengrin

3 DAYS

Left for the announcement of 'the creditors meeting which will take place some time in March to rubber stamp the transfer of shares' to actually take place sometime in March.

Then sometime in March becomes sometime in April. Or May.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S

3 DAYS

Left for the announcement of 'the creditors meeting which will take place some time in March to rubber stamp the transfer of shares' to actually take place sometime in March.

Then sometime in March becomes sometime in April. Or May.

---

Better than that isn't it Bob? Do we not now go to Q2 since the anticipated Q1 has almost passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajillions

I think that would makes the pledges subject to Tax. The FOH is being run like a charity just now.

---

So, if FoH release funds to a business entity (currently trading in administration) in order to help that entity to keep trading because it has no income, won't that mean the funds are being used for business purposes and not charitiable purpoes and be subject to tax?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'Rourke3

Better than that isn't it Bob? Do we not now go to Q2 since the anticipated Q1 has almost passed.

---

Oh probably much much more so. I was just rather lazily adding on 30 days from the creditors meeting assuming they called it within the next few days, which take them to last days of March.

Here's a serious question to all: might Los Yambolinos not liquidise after the split as this wouldn't effect the fixture list?

Question.

Re those pledges..... if FOH get agreement to use the money collected so far to help run the Hear7s is that not subject to a tax?

I'm sure I read somewhere that it would be seen as "income"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S

3 DAYS

Left for the announcement of 'the creditors meeting which will take place some time in March to rubber stamp the transfer of shares' to actually take place sometime in March.

Then sometime in March becomes sometime in April. Or May.

---

Less than that.

Given that written notice is probably required and not knowing anything about Lithuania First Class Post I cannot be sure but if it was here, a First class letter posted today may be delivered by Friday advising of he 28 days notice period required.

So I reckon by tomorrow - after postal deliver Q1 has gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'Rourke3

Better than that isn't it Bob? Do we not now go to Q2 since the anticipated Q1 has almost passed.

---

Realistically I think we have been in Q2, for a while.

Whether that actually comes to fruition or it moves to Q3 who knows at this stage

I love the very title of this thread. Yet, none of the pink plums, have the brains to think about it for a moment.
Their very few braincells which cover thoughts on Rudi, 5-1, their sister and 1902 are doing overtime already I guess - without being able to take in anymore.

"queen of hearts"
"we've got 8000 pledgers"
etc - just don't !

Oh what a nice thread to see us through the winter. Pleasing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S

Oh probably much much more so. I was just rather lazily adding on 30 days from the creditors meeting assuming they called it within the next few days, which take them to last days of March.

Here's a serious question to all: might Los Yambolinos not liquidise after the split as this wouldn't effect the fixture list?

---

While that would be funny I think it would. Putting the points back to the teams who dropped them might alter the table. One team thinking it was out the play-off spot finds itself clawed back into the fight. Like Gretna I think the SFPL will do everything to keep them going. Still be very funny though, they'd be catching us up by Christmas 2020.....

Bloomin' phone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S

Oh probably much much more so. I was just rather lazily adding on 30 days from the creditors meeting assuming they called it within the next few days, which take them to last days of March.

Here's a serious question to all: might Los Yambolinos not liquidise after the split as this wouldn't effect the fixture list?

---

I suspect the SPFL would give the didelė komanda money for placing last, to tide them over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PapillonVert

So, if FoH release funds to a business entity (currently trading in administration) in order to help that entity to keep trading because it has no income, won't that mean the funds are being used for business purposes and not charitiable purpoes and be subject to tax?

---

Per HMRC's own manual:-

if the character in the recipient's hands is that of a payment made in order that the money may be used in the recipient's business, to supplement trading or other business receipts and to enable the recipient to carry on business, or otherwise to preserve and maintain trading stability and solvency, then it will be a taxable trading receipt (Smart v Lincolnshire Sugar Co Ltd [1937] 20TC643 at 670; British Commonwealth International Newsfilm Agency Ltd v Mahany [1962] 40TC550 at 578 and 582);

In a word, AYE. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'Rourke3

Better than that isn't it Bob? Do we not now go to Q2 since the anticipated Q1 has almost passed.

---

Allisnotverycomplex:-)

Why would a big team settle for one quarter when they can have two?

Tick tock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Per HMRC's own manual:-

if the character in the recipient's hands is that of a payment made in order that the money may be used in the recipient's business, to supplement trading or other business receipts and to enable the recipient to carry on business, or otherwise to preserve and maintain trading stability and solvency, then it will be a taxable trading receipt (Smart v Lincolnshire Sugar Co Ltd [1937] 20TC643 at 670; British Commonwealth International Newsfilm Agency Ltd v Mahany [1962] 40TC550 at 578 and 582);

In a word, AYE. :wink:

---

That's an impressive memory you've got Cropley. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

That's an impressive memory you've got Cropley. :thumbsup:

---

I wish I did.:rolleyes:

Actually, about 50 pages back there was the same discussion... hence a few dull bells went off in my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'Rourke3

While that would be funny I think it would. Putting the points back to the teams who dropped them might alter the table. One team thinking it was out the play-off spot finds itself clawed back into the fight. Like Gretna I think the SFPL will do everything to keep them going. Still be very funny though, they'd be catching us up by Christmas 2020.....

---

A post-split liquidation of Hearts would have little impact on the table. The pre-split results and points would remain. It would have some impact on the bottom six post-split fixtures with teams having four rather than five matches.

I do agree that the SPL would do everything they could to keep Hearts going till the end of the season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

A post-split liquidation of Hearts would have little impact on the table. The pre-split results and points would remain. It would have some impact on the bottom six post-split fixtures with teams having four rather than five matches.

I do agree that the SPL would do everything they could to keep Hearts going till the end of the season.

---

Post-split and pre-split liquidation sounds like something the manager would be discussing with a lassie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PapillonVert

So, if FoH release funds to a business entity (currently trading in administration) in order to help that entity to keep trading because it has no income, won't that mean the funds are being used for business purposes and not charitiable purpoes and be subject to tax?

---

Not if it was a loan within an arm's length transaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Per HMRC's own manual:-

if the character in the recipient's hands is that of a payment made in order that the money may be used in the recipient's business, to supplement trading or other business receipts and to enable the recipient to carry on business, or otherwise to preserve and maintain trading stability and solvency, then it will be a taxable trading receipt (Smart v Lincolnshire Sugar Co Ltd [1937] 20TC643 at 670; British Commonwealth International Newsfilm Agency Ltd v Mahany [1962] 40TC550 at 578 and 582);

In a word, AYE. :wink:

---

CWG - not wishing to disagree - you are correct that is from a handbook but the reality is the Yams will receive the money as a loan, will account for it as such - therefore no Corporation Tax or V.A.T. -, and if H.M.R.C. wish to tax it as income it will be years away and they will face resistance particularly if the loan was subsequently repaid (with interest would help) or there has been a loan/share swap.