Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

As SergeyWasBajilions says, I made a similar comment on the PM board. My take on it was:

- We know that both Ukio and UBIG owe substantial amounts to Saulius.
- The 'good' bits of Ukio were transferred to Saulius. That might include a call on the PBS security since land is one of the safest securities you can get and the £6.8m was presumably the market value at the time the security was raised.
- It's possible that Saulius don't hold enough of Ukio's total debt to influence the outcome of a vote, but it seems they do have enough of UBIG's.
- Thus, Saulius would block the sale of UBIG's shares and force liquidation of HoMFC (IA). In doing that they would lose a share of the £50k (or £100k) but gain a share of the correct market value of the PBS - if my second point is correct they'd gain the full £6.8m if it was sold for more than that.

I'm not saying that's how it is but it does seem like a possible scenario to me.

---

Thanks Cav, that sounds braw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HFCDaveA

Thats exactly what he is saying, basically 2.5 million and they own the pbs. He said as there is a growing concern that liquidation will happen, they could find themselves in the bottom tier with no stadium. If there is no chance of getting those 50% shares, and a worry that liquidation could take time and raise the price of the pbs beyond 2.5 million it does make sense!

---

I see what you mean (even though they're currently telling us that the land is next to worthless and £2m is overpaying if anything).

Paragraph 5.3 of the CVA proposal says "The offer is subject to the FoH entering into a formal Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) with the majority shareholders (BAB UB and UBIG) for the transfer of the majority shareholdings to FoH, and the terms of the said SPA are acceptable to the Secured Creditor. If any material change in the circumstances arises (outside the scope of this CVA), then any party to the agreement will be entitled to withdraw from the proposed SPA."

That seems to me to say that you can't have the CVA without UBIG's shares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorgie greens

BDO have to do everything they can to keep HMFC going and try to get the CVA approved and only if the CVA is kicked in to touch by the Lith's or they are unable to get the frozen shares (Portsmouth situation)or more importantly they run out of money .
The way things are going I think the lack of funds could seal there destiny,

---

Weststanwanabe posted up a link in this thread back on 5th Feb:

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?1...=1#post3898103

It's the admin's progress report dated 30 Jan 2014. The link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/204800547/...editors-Report

Scroll down to the third scanned page and you'll see:

Quote:

---

The delivery of shareholdings held by BAB Ukio Bankas and UBIG may also be dependent on the approval of the respective creditors of each of the bankrupt estates and/or the Lithuanian Court, under the law of Lithuania

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleplum

I see what you mean (even though they're currently telling us that the land is next to worthless and £2m is overpaying if anything).

Paragraph 5.3 of the CVA proposal says "The offer is subject to the FoH entering into a formal Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) with the majority shareholders (BAB UB and UBIG) for the transfer of the majority shareholdings to FoH, and the terms of the said SPA are acceptable to the Secured Creditor. If any material change in the circumstances arises (outside the scope of this CVA), then any party to the agreement will be entitled to withdraw from the proposed SPA."

That seems to me to say that you can't have the CVA without UBIG's shares.

---

Absolutely.

What would be the point otherwise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleplum

I see what you mean (even though they're currently telling us that the land is next to worthless and £2m is overpaying if anything).

Paragraph 5.3 of the CVA proposal says "The offer is subject to the FoH entering into a formal Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) with the majority shareholders (BAB UB and UBIG) for the transfer of the majority shareholdings to FoH, and the terms of the said SPA are acceptable to the Secured Creditor. If any material change in the circumstances arises (outside the scope of this CVA), then any party to the agreement will be entitled to withdraw from the proposed SPA."

That seems to me to say that you can't have the CVA without UBIG's shares.

---

The fact that Budge or BIDCO are not mentioned here is also a possible reason for scuppering the deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

The fact that Budge or BIDCO are not mentioned here is also a possible reason for scuppering the deal.

---

Not in practical terms. The CVA would transfer Yam ownership to FoH and immediately they would make a transfer to Bidco when they would release the funds to the Lith. admin.

Where it could have come apart is the idea that it was OK for the Lith. admin to give a special reduced cost deal to a not for profit fans group but would baulk at doing the deal with a Multi-Millionaire like Anne Budge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Absolutely.

What would be the point otherwise?

---

I think HFCDaveA is saying the journalist is suggesting it as a way of securing the stadium before liquidation rather than letting it go on the open market.

But it would appear that for once a journalist seems to have got his facts wrong...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

The fact that Budge or BIDCO are not mentioned here is also a possible reason for scuppering the deal.

---

BOLLOCKS!!!! That was gonna be my first decent post on all of this as I don't have the brain power of CWG, Bajillions, Sergey etc and you beat me to it! Away to greet.....

They Deid Yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott7_0(Prague)

They Deid Yet?

---

nope, that fine grand old slag of scottish football appears to still be making the odd wriggling movement, another good hard kick and it should be over though!!

Passed by the PBS earlier this morning and Budgie's car was in the Yam car park, two hours later its still there.

Big business , or was on the pash last night and had to leave her wheels. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Passed by the PBS earlier this morning and Budgie's car was in the Yam car park, two hours later its still there.

Big business , or was on the pash last night and had to leave her wheels. :greengrin

---

She's moving her stuff out of the office before it gets sold off !.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Passed by the PBS earlier this morning and Budgie's car was in the Yam car park, two hours later its still there.

Big business , or was on the pash last night and had to leave her wheels. :greengrin

---

Was the purple one drinking from the purple tin last night? Pishhy Breeks must have put her on to them. I saw him this morning as I passed by Parliament Square. I've no idea if his sombre demeanour was through drink or despair?

Attachment 12345

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Passed by the PBS earlier this morning and Budgie's car was in the Yam car park, two hours later its still there.

Big business , or was on the pash last night and had to leave her wheels. :greengrin

---

Probably got this thread up on a big screen in their board room and working on their Plan B(asement)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott7_0(Prague)

They Deid Yet?

---

No they are like that last turd floater that you keep on flushing but it never goes down the u-bend.

It was only a matter of time until June was mentioned...

Quote:

---

A Roaster wrote

We won't be exiting administration on 28th April. Assuming Monday's meeting goes our way, there is a 20 day cooling off period. At that point we will be closer to exiting administration but not quite there. The paperwork for the deal between BIDCO and Ukio will have to be finalised, money will have to change hands and all the legal niceties will have to be completed. However BDO should be in a position to put STs up for sale and FoH can start funding the working capital from that date.

Even after that, BDO will have to petition the Court of Session to enable us to formally exit administration. I'm not sure of the timescales but it will probably be well into May or the start of June before the club is free to trade normally. I'd guess that BDO's (and Ukio's) aim will be to exit administration by 18th June at the latest, as that is when BDO's fixed fee deal expires.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zondervan, 3rd March

Apologies for the delay. Here is the reply, copied verbatim!

___________

It is delayed but nothing other than Lithuanian Authorities being slow in doing things.

That BALLOONS OR WHATEVER HE IS called is a pure BS. Trust me. Him and Sergey are making out that there is trouble over in Lithuania when all it is that in the scheme of things Hearts are not a big priority to sort in the overall mess.

I was at a meeting 2 weeks ago where it was leaked by Bryan Jackson (not sure why it couldn’t be announced) that it will be April but not sure if start or the end of April. We have enough money to last until May without season tickets but FOH have £1.3m in the bank that they are willing to use.

Bryan Jackson was in Lithuania last week trying to speed things along.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey, 3rd March

The Lithuanians are slow in doing things? Aye, it's always someone else's fault :greengrin

What happens if they're so slow that the money dries up, the FOH money dries up, the season ticket money dries up and they start next season on minus 15?

As for his latest timescales, I've put this in the diary for April 30th :wink:

Cheers for that :aok:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergey

It was only a matter of time until June was mentioned...

---

That doesn't sound good for our pal. I wonder how good he is at organising boycotts :dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergey

It was only a matter of time until June was mentioned...

---

Again, I'm sensing bet-hedging. The year has not been specified.

I've a more sensible plan: exit administration this month.


(Through liquidation, of course.)

There has been a lot of talk on what would and would not be allowed to be built on the site of Tynecastle. Some Hearts fans are clinging to "but it's in a blast zone, so there'd be no planning permission for flats" or "Edinburgh Council wouldn't allow a change of use".


One simple solution to answer this query would surely be to guage the opinion of the council on this matter, so let's do that, as they've already produced a rather detailed document on the matter :wink:

----------------------------------

"A number of significant redevelopment opportunities exist in the Gorgie area as a result of the possible reorganisation and relocation of various activities."

....Who could they be referring to, I wonder

"The Plan’s policies generally support new housing on sites suitable for redevelopment and covered by this designation, as well as business uses, compatible with a housing area,"

...Hmmmm.

"Archaeology
4.3 While there is considered to be little of archaeological interest in the area,"

.....I wouldn't say that, what about Tynecastle Main Stand, and the attitudes of its residents?

"Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH)
4.5 New development within the area, including changes of use, is constrained by the industrial operations of NBDC and Macfarlan Smith Ltd."

....Oh dear, a spanner in the works? No re-development allowed?

"The CDs associated with the operations of Macfarlan Smith presently extend 440m around each of the 3 installations located within their site. The effect of which is to impose constraints on new development on sites within the distillery, on part of the football stadium and most of Tynecastle High School"

...sorry, did you say MOST of the High school but only PART of the stadium? You mean there could be a possible difference in value of both plots of land, explaining why the school sold for a very low price?

Could you explain the difference?

"....the existing high school (inner zone), the majority of the football stadium (inner, middle and outer zones), and...."

Sorry, did you mention zones? For example, what wouldn't be allowed in the inner zone?

"developments for use by the general public, vulnerable people (hospitals, nursing homes, crèches and schools) and large and sensitive developments, including large sports stadia."

....Sports stadia not allowed? Surely not!

What about what would be allowed in the middle and outer zones, most of the current stadium land, in terms of housing? Middle Zone first...

"as inner zone, plus developments for use by the general public: including houses/flats – of up to and including 30 dwelling units and at a density of no more than 40 per hectare. Retail, community & adult education and assembly and leisure use"

....retail, housing and flats? really?

....what about the outer zone?

"as inner and middle zones, plus qualified support for institutional accommodation and education"

....institutional Accomodation you say? Like Old Folks Homes or high density student flats, perhaps?

I just read an article that mentioned that any site close to the new Tram Line could rocket in value. Just how close IS this area to that line?

"Tram Line 2 passes within 500m of the area covered by the development brief."

....Wow! That IS close!

If hearts DID leave the site, and it is re-developed, what provision would have to be made in such an event? For example, to remove all trace of the previous inhabitants?

"...a broader approach to the provision of water and drainage facilities may be required, including consideration of a combined on-site treatment facility to serve the wider area prior to discharge to combined sewers."

Amen to that Brother!

----------------------------

Full Document available HERE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

There has been a lot of talk on what would and would not be allowed to be built on the site of Tynecastle. Some Hearts fans are clinging to "but it's in a blast zone, so there'd be no planning permission for flats" or "Edinburgh Council wouldn't allow a change of use".


One simple solution to answer this query would surely be to guage the opinion of the council on this matter, so let's do that, as they've already produced a rather detailed document on the matter :wink:

----------------------------------

"A number of significant redevelopment opportunities exist in the Gorgie area as a result of the possible reorganisation and relocation of various activities."

....Who could they be referring to, I wonder

"The Plan’s policies generally support new housing on sites suitable for redevelopment and covered by this designation, as well as business uses, compatible with a housing area,"

...Hmmmm.

"Archaeology
4.3 While there is considered to be little of archaeological interest in the area,"

.....I wouldn't say that.

"Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH)
4.5 New development within the area, including changes of use, is constrained by the industrial operations of NBDC and Macfarlan Smith Ltd."

....Oh dear, a spanner in the works? No re-development allowed?

"The CDs associated with the operations of Macfarlan Smith presently extend 440m around each of the 3 installations located within their site. The effect of which is to impose constraints on new development on sites within the distillery, on part of the football stadium and most of Tynecastle High School"

...sorry, did you say MOST of the High school but only PART of the stadium? You mean there could be a possible difference in value of both plots of land, explaining why the school sold for a very low price?

Could you explain the difference?

"....the existing high school (inner zone), the majority of the football stadium (inner, middle and outer zones), and...."

Sorry, did you mention zones? For example, what wouldn't be allowed in the inner zone?

"developments for use by the general public, vulnerable people (hospitals, nursing homes, crèches and schools) and large and sensitive developments, including large sports stadia."

....Sports stadia not allowed? Surely not!

What about what would be allowed in the middle and outer zones, most of the current stadium land, in terms of housing? Middle Zone first...

"as inner zone, plus developments for use by the general public: including houses/flats – of up to and including 30 dwelling units and at a density of no more than 40 per hectare. Retail, community & adult education and assembly and leisure use"

....retail, housing and flats? really?

....what about the outer zone?

"as inner and middle zones, plus qualified support for institutional accommodation and education"

....institutional Accomodation you say? Like Old Folks Homes or high density student flats, perhaps?

I just read an article that mentioned that any site close to the new Tram Line could rocket in value. Just how close IS this area to that line?

"Tram Line 2 passes within 500m of the area covered by the development brief."

....Wow! That IS close!

If hearts DID leave the site, and it is re-developed, what provision would have to be made in such and event? For example, to remove all trace of the previous inhabitants?

"...a broader approach to the provision of water and drainage facilities may be required, including consideration of a combined on-site treatment facility to serve the wider area prior to discharge to combined sewers."

Amen to that Brother!

----------------------------

Full Document available HERE

---

:greengrin I'm sensing you enjoyed putting that post together

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HibeeMassive

:greengrin I'm sensing you enjoyed putting that post together

---

What makes you say that?


:greengrin

That development brief is dated May 2004 and there has been a lot of Litas down the drain since then.

The extent of the COMAH zone has already been reduced by the construction of a blast wall by the Distillery. This was confirmed to me yesterday by the City Estates Department, but they could not give me an up-to-date plan.

The recent purchase of the old Tynecastle school by the Distillery to be developed as their admin. offices will also involve the relocation of the ethanol tanks to the other side of their site.

This could result in the entire PBS being outside the Zone.

I don't think any Yams would be keen on this information coming into the open in the near future. :greengrin

[QUOTE=keekaboo;3954758]
One simple solution to answer this query would surely be to guage the opinion of the council on this matter, so let's do that, as they've already produced a rather detailed document on the matter :wink:

Funnily enough, I was talking about this with my manager, a Planner, this morning. I said about the value of the prime site close to Edinburgh City Centre, but he countered with the Scottish Planning Policy that sports facilities would not be removed "Provided there is shown to be a need for them". Now, we could argue all day that there isn't a need for Tynecastle in the Lower levels of Scottish Football, but then Sevco kept Ibrox and there was seen to be a need for it. It would require The Newhearts, if they exist, to have another home before the piggery could be developed, although, I asked, what about Meadowbank, which apparently is not much smaller capacity than the piggery.

I don't want to be negative, but there may well be obstacles to developing Tynecastle while they still exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

That development brief is dated May 2004 and there has been a lot of Litas down the drain since then. The extent of the COMAH zone has already been reduced by the construction of a blast wall by the Distillery. This was confirmed to me yesterday by the City Estates Department, but they could not give me an up-to-date plan. The recent purchase of the old Tynecastle school by the Distillery to be developed as their admin. offices will also involve the relocation of the ethanol tanks to the other side of their site. This could result in the entire PBS being outside the Zone. I don't think any Yams would be keen on this information coming into the open in the near future. :greengrin

---

They probably wouldn't be too keen if you accidentally copied and pasted that info and it accidentally found its way to another European country, I dunno, say Lithuania?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

They probably wouldn't be too keen if you accidentally copied and pasted that info and it accidentally found its way to another European country, I dunno, say Lithuania?

---

It's already been done weeks ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

That development brief is dated May 2004 and there has been a lot of Litas down the drain since then.

The extent of the COMAH zone has already been reduced by the construction of a blast wall by the Distillery. This was confirmed to me yesterday by the City Estates Department, but they could not give me an up-to-date plan.

The recent purchase of the old Tynecastle school by the Distillery to be developed as their admin. offices will also involve the relocation of the ethanol tanks to the other side of their site.

This could result in the entire PBS being outside the Zone.

I don't think any Yams would be keen on this information coming into the open in the near future. :greengrin

---

Very true, and you would have thought some enterprising journalist would have found it by now, considering its relevance to Hearts future.

The point is, it clearly establishes the long held viewpoint of the council as to what would and would not be allowed on the site. The only material difference in the intevening years is that development has become less restricted, due to the changes you mention.


However, I already know the answers of the Ostriches (my replies included):


That document's auld, disnae apply anymore -- Prove it!

The land value has plummeted in the 10 years since -- Nowhere in the document does it mention land value, only what would and would not be allowed to be built. It still kills your 'Nae development allowed' argument.

But, but, dangerous gas explosions! -- I'm not interested in your personal problems mate.

Jealous Hobo, Wee team, 1902, 5-1 --You just lost the argument, ya plum!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

There has been a lot of talk on what would and would not be allowed to be built on the site of Tynecastle. Some Hearts fans are clinging to "but it's in a blast zone, so there'd be no planning permission for flats" or "Edinburgh Council wouldn't allow a change of use".


One simple solution to answer this query would surely be to guage the opinion of the council on this matter, so let's do that, as they've already produced a rather detailed document on the matter :wink:

----------------------------------

"A number of significant redevelopment opportunities exist in the Gorgie area as a result of the possible reorganisation and relocation of various activities."

....Who could they be referring to, I wonder

"The Plan’s policies generally support new housing on sites suitable for redevelopment and covered by this designation, as well as business uses, compatible with a housing area,"

...Hmmmm.

"Archaeology
4.3 While there is considered to be little of archaeological interest in the area,"

.....I wouldn't say that.

"Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH)
4.5 New development within the area, including changes of use, is constrained by the industrial operations of NBDC and Macfarlan Smith Ltd."

....Oh dear, a spanner in the works? No re-development allowed?

"The CDs associated with the operations of Macfarlan Smith presently extend 440m around each of the 3 installations located within their site. The effect of which is to impose constraints on new development on sites within the distillery, on part of the football stadium and most of Tynecastle High School"

...sorry, did you say MOST of the High school but only PART of the stadium? You mean there could be a possible difference in value of both plots of land, explaining why the school sold for a very low price?

Could you explain the difference?

"....the existing high school (inner zone), the majority of the football stadium (inner, middle and outer zones), and...."

Sorry, did you mention zones? For example, what wouldn't be allowed in the inner zone?

"developments for use by the general public, vulnerable people (hospitals, nursing homes, crèches and schools) and large and sensitive developments, including large sports stadia."

....Sports stadia not allowed? Surely not!

What about what would be allowed in the middle and outer zones, most of the current stadium land, in terms of housing? Middle Zone first...

"as inner zone, plus developments for use by the general public: including houses/flats – of up to and including 30 dwelling units and at a density of no more than 40 per hectare. Retail, community & adult education and assembly and leisure use"

....retail, housing and flats? really?

....what about the outer zone?

"as inner and middle zones, plus qualified support for institutional accommodation and education"

....institutional Accomodation you say? Like Old Folks Homes or high density student flats, perhaps?

I just read an article that mentioned that any site close to the new Tram Line could rocket in value. Just how close IS this area to that line?

"Tram Line 2 passes within 500m of the area covered by the development brief."

....Wow! That IS close!

If hearts DID leave the site, and it is re-developed, what provision would have to be made in such an event? For example, to remove all trace of the previous inhabitants?

"...a broader approach to the provision of water and drainage facilities may be required, including consideration of a combined on-site treatment facility to serve the wider area prior to discharge to combined sewers."

Amen to that Brother!

----------------------------

Full Document available HERE

---

:aok: I'll add what I posted in post #15619 in this thread.

Quote:

---

the report produced for HoMFC and the council states:

"Under this site specific risk assessment of the ethanol storage, the majority of the site falls out with the consultation zones arising from a major event in the ethanol storage tanks. Our assessment concludes that the effects of a major accident hazard in the ethanol storage tanks to be acceptable and should not therefore place a restriction on any re-development of the majority of the site. It is recommended that the club officials discuss the findings of this report with the local planning authority."

Basically, whilst the exclusion zone covers most of Tynecastle at present, this is based on the zone being taken from the edge of the distillery site, and not the specific risk within the distillery site (the ethanol tanks) if the zone is taken from the risk within the distillery site, then the majority of Tynecastle is out with the exclusion zone and could be redeveloped for any use. This could be used by a developer to support any development they wanted. At the time of this report, HoMFC themselves stated that the site would be worth around £8m-£10m on the open market, so I would imagine the administrator of UKIO will be looking to fully satisfy the £6.8m security they have over the ground. The FOH or whoever wishes to bid will have to come up with at least that much to get the club.

---

Also this post contains a bit more info from the report: #15664

You can read the full joint CEC and HOMFC report on stadium redevelopment here in case anyone wants to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergio sledge

You can read the full joint CEC and HOMFC report on stadium redevelopment here in case anyone wants to.

---

Excellent, Sergio - That document has a COMAH restrictions map that I've been asked for. I couldn't find it anywhere :aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergio sledge

:aok: I'll add what I posted in post You can read the full joint CEC and HOMFC report on stadium redevelopment here in case anyone wants to.

---

Key pic- site specific assessment of the COMAH zone. The COMAH zone in the 2004 pic covers most of the site, not so in the 2011 version. :wink:

http://home2.btconnect.com/anniviers/tiny.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Key pic- site specific assessment of the COMAH zone. The COMAH zone in the 2004 pic covers most of the site, not so in the 2011 version. :wink:

http://home2.btconnect.com/anniviers/tiny.jpg

---

Yes. This is the one I've shared a couple of times... A couple of other things to take into account.

This plan is as it stood when the south tank was in use. And also the current plan is to shift the north tank which is currently in use to allow full development of the old school site.