Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

I think Sheila Rowland ( matrimonial disharmony), who held a percentage of her husbands shares, was also instrumental in WM failing to get the required shares to kill off Hibs. WM would have killed us off in a heartbeat if given the chance, he didn't succeed, and it was nothing to do with romanticised pleas from the Hear7s support.
Are they deid yet.

GGTTH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

Spot on. The only thing that prevented the "takeover" was David Duff refusing to sell his shareholding (and taking a financial hit in the process). He may have been instrumental (along with Gray) in getting us into that vulnerable position, but he deserves credit for digging his heels in at the 11th hour.

---

His name is dirt to many within our support however he took a huge financial hit by refusing to sell. On the rally day at Easter Road he was crying his eyes out. Our club meant something to David Duff.

At this stage the best policy is just to agree with them.

* Hearts fans saved Hibs and we're showing our gratitude by treacherously destroying their club.

* Hearts saved the Lithuanian investors and tax payers millions of pounds and now they show their gratitude by letting the club die.

* Hearts saved the British taxpayer and charities and local businesses millions of pounds, and now our government stand by idly and watch the club head for liquidation.

:violin::violin::violin::violin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickyS

each to their own mate but i ****ing hate the place, 100 stadiums i would rather go to (maybe thats green tinted glasses tho i dinny ken)

---

I can't really get what's great about it. Their old stand is a death trap and the new one look 50 rather than 20 years old. The atmosphere is decent but it's nowhere near the best i've experienced in Scotland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S

At this stage the best policy is just to agree with them.

* Hearts fans saved Hibs and we're showing our gratitude by treacherously destroying their club.

* Hearts saved the Lithuanian investors and tax payers millions of pounds and now they show their gratitude by letting the club die.

* Hearts saved the British taxpayer and charities and local businesses millions of pounds, and now our government stand by idly and watch the club head for liquidation.

:violin::violin::violin::violin:

---

Having worked in a few psychiatric institutions in my time, you're right, this is the best policy when dealing with the delusional. However. These "case studies" are being cared for "in the community" and a cold, harsh dose of reality, although sometimes dangerous and cruel, is also on occasion warranted.

Prognosis - imbecilic. Prescription - patient(s) to wear a remedial baseball cap with a contraption that dangles a sign before their eyes baring the motto "hertz ur cattled".

Cap to be worn in public at all times, report to a doctor if recurrent twitch becomes uncontrollable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brunswickbill

From Scottish Planning Policy

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publicati.../02/03132605/0


Playing Fields


156. Playing fields are an important resource for sport and should be provided in sufficient quantity, quality and accessibility to satisfy current and likely future community demand. Local authorities are expected to develop a playing fields strategy in consultation with sportscotland as part of the wider open space strategy. Playing fields, including those within educational establishments, which are required to meet existing or future needs should be identified in the local development plan. Playing fields and sports pitches should not be redeveloped except where:

..................


It's primarily aimed at public sports pitches but it could be used to stand in the way of redevelopment. particularly by yam councillors on the planning committee. Not insurmountable IMHO

---

Please have a look at the EDC Document on the subject. What you have quoted is completely irrelevant, as they have already stated (as far back as ten years ago) they would allow housing and retail on the site. The blast zone mentioned in the document is now even less relevant, as it now only covers the north west corner of the stadium ,much less than it did ten years ago.


If you want a brief summary of the relevant parts, please read my (admittedly sarcastic) post on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdinAyr

Is tynecastle a public listed building?

---

It's more likely a listing building.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamilton Handling

If it is indeed a playing field does anyone fancy a 10-21 on it? Sunday. Half 2. Tims against Billys.

---

Ten twenty wanner.... Not heard that for ages. Mind and bring yur jumpers for goalposts. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aldo

Ten twenty wanner.... Not heard that for ages. Mind and bring yur jumpers for goalposts. ;-)

---

The goalposts are already there .. just mind and bring them away with you afterwards :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibs07p

I think Sheila Rowland ( matrimonial disharmony), who held a percentage of her husbands shares, was also instrumental in WM failing to get the required shares to kill off Hibs. WM would have killed us off in a heartbeat if given the chance, he didn't succeed, and it was nothing to do with romanticised pleas from the Hear7s support.
Are they deid yet.

GGTTH

---

Sheila Rowland played a part alright, but I think as a director. Her vote against the takeover along with Duff and Grey outvoted the other 2 David Rowland stooges.

I think it went on to a share count which we could have lost as well ,but Kenny Waugh who had sold out to Duff and Grey originally paid about £ 250,000 for a share holding that tipped the balance in our favour.

Waugh lost all that money with the parent company administration.

There were a few big players below the radar but the Yam hoards are not amongst them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

The Edinburgh Local Development Plan is the thing to read.

The relevant section http://217.174.251.127/dev/plans/eclp/chap5.htm#OS1


It says:

Policy Os 1 - Open Space Protection

Proposals involving the loss of open space will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that:

• there will be no significant impact on the quality or character of the local environment
• the open space is a small part of a larger area or of limited amenity or leisure value and there is a significant over-provision of open space serving the immediate area and
• the loss would not be detrimental to the wider network including its continuity or biodiversity value and either
• there will be a local benefit in allowing the development in terms of either alternative equivalent provision being made or improvement to an existing public park or other open space or
• the development is for a community purpose and the benefits to the local community outweigh the loss.

The policy seeks to protect all open spaces, both public and privately owned, which contribute to the amenity of their surroundings and the city, which provide or are capable of providing for the recreational needs of residents and visitors or which are an integral part of the city’s landscape and townscape character and its biodiversity. Many of the open spaces identified on the Proposals Map are covered by more than one designation, depending on their environmental quality and value to the community. It will be more important to protect open spaces in the future, as the population of parts of the city increases and brings added pressure on existing resources. The Council will only consider limited releases of open space to development in exceptional circumstances, where the loss would not result in detriment to the overall network or provision in the locality, and there are compensatory circumstances, such as scope for improving the quality of provision elsewhere in the network. Amenity areas in housing which have been provided with no clear purpose or sense of ownership might be considered for development, especially if a more comprehensive redevelopment of a wider area is in prospect and the resulting open space would be smaller in area but better in quality and usefulness.

Policy Os 2 - Playing Fields Protection

In addition to the requirements of Policy Os 1, the loss of some or all of a playing field or sports pitch will be permitted only where one of the following circumstances applies:

• the proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as a playing field
• the proposed development involves a minor part of a playing field and would not adversely affect the use or potential of the remainder for sport and training
• an alternative playing field is to be provided of at least equivalent sporting value in a no less convenient location, or existing provision is to be significantly improved to compensate for the loss
• the Council is satisfied that there is a clear excess of sports pitches to meet current and anticipated future demand in the area, and the site can be developed without detriment to the overall quality of provision.

Playing field provision must be considered as a city-wide resource and in terms of its contribution to local needs. The Council’s assessment of provision in the city as a whole has concluded that the amount of pitches, whether or not in public ownership or publicly accessible, is equivalent to the need. However, about one third are substandard and would need to be improved. On this evaluation, the loss of pitches to development cannot be justified in principle. However, the loss might be acceptable if alternative equivalent provision is to be made in an equally convenient location. Development has been allowed where other pitches serving the local community are to be equipped with all-weather playing surfaces.

---

But it's not an open space nor a playing field. Still not convinced the Yams could use this to their advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Whatever you think of the football club, with its shielding of beasts and poppy thieving, you can't deny that Tynecastle's a great sporting venue.

---

I agree, it's the best sporting venue in Gorgie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangermouse

But it's not an open space nor a playing field. Still not convinced the Yams could use this to their advantage.

---

Beleive me, that is straight out of the Edinburgh LDP. I work amongst Planners and my manager put me onto this info.

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/178...tructure_plans

So long as we get a 'NO' vote on Monday then I don't give a hoot if it's a playing field or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

Beleive me, that is straight out of the Edinburgh LDP. I work amongst Planners and my manager put me onto this info.

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/178...tructure_plans

---

Its a big document, what page is applicable ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangermouse

I agree, it's the best sporting venue in Gorgie.

---

Nah, what about the bowling club?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangermouse

I agree, it's the best sporting venue in Gorgie.

---

Wrong!!!!

Gorgie Mills Bowling Club, while still a ****hole, is a vastly superior sporting venue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Nah, what about the bowling club?

---

Aye Gorgie Mills, Bainfield, even Ardmillan or Fountain Brewery or North British Distillery Bowling Clubs!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S

At this stage the best policy is just to agree with them.

* Hearts fans saved Hibs and we're showing our gratitude by treacherously destroying their club.

* Hearts saved the Lithuanian investors and tax payers millions of pounds and now they show their gratitude by letting the club die.

* Hearts saved the British taxpayer and charities and local businesses millions of pounds, and now our government stand by idly and watch the club head for liquidation.

:violin::violin::violin::violin:

---

Now, now, Lest we Forget and all that - what about one Jack Alexander's claims that they "single-handedly saved football as we know it" and won World War One as well?

One thing I'm sure of - LEST WE FORGET - HMFC DIN NOT PAY FOR THEIR POPPIES!! - let them die (as painfully as possible, but please just them f*** off and die). THE CLUB WITH NO SHAME.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

The Edinburgh Local Development Plan is the thing to read.

The relevant section http://217.174.251.127/dev/plans/eclp/chap5.htm#OS1


It says:

Policy Os 1 - Open Space Protection

Proposals involving the loss of open space will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that:

• there will be no significant impact on the quality or character of the local environment
• the open space is a small part of a larger area or of limited amenity or leisure value and there is a significant over-provision of open space serving the immediate area and
• the loss would not be detrimental to the wider network including its continuity or biodiversity value and either
• there will be a local benefit in allowing the development in terms of either alternative equivalent provision being made or improvement to an existing public park or other open space or
• the development is for a community purpose and the benefits to the local community outweigh the loss.

The policy seeks to protect all open spaces, both public and privately owned, which contribute to the amenity of their surroundings and the city, which provide or are capable of providing for the recreational needs of residents and visitors or which are an integral part of the city’s landscape and townscape character and its biodiversity. Many of the open spaces identified on the Proposals Map are covered by more than one designation, depending on their environmental quality and value to the community. It will be more important to protect open spaces in the future, as the population of parts of the city increases and brings added pressure on existing resources. The Council will only consider limited releases of open space to development in exceptional circumstances, where the loss would not result in detriment to the overall network or provision in the locality, and there are compensatory circumstances, such as scope for improving the quality of provision elsewhere in the network. Amenity areas in housing which have been provided with no clear purpose or sense of ownership might be considered for development, especially if a more comprehensive redevelopment of a wider area is in prospect and the resulting open space would be smaller in area but better in quality and usefulness.

Policy Os 2 - Playing Fields Protection

In addition to the requirements of Policy Os 1, the loss of some or all of a playing field or sports pitch will be permitted only where one of the following circumstances applies:

• the proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as a playing field
• the proposed development involves a minor part of a playing field and would not adversely affect the use or potential of the remainder for sport and training
• an alternative playing field is to be provided of at least equivalent sporting value in a no less convenient location, or existing provision is to be significantly improved to compensate for the loss
• the Council is satisfied that there is a clear excess of sports pitches to meet current and anticipated future demand in the area, and the site can be developed without detriment to the overall quality of provision.

Playing field provision must be considered as a city-wide resource and in terms of its contribution to local needs. The Council’s assessment of provision in the city as a whole has concluded that the amount of pitches, whether or not in public ownership or publicly accessible, is equivalent to the need. However, about one third are substandard and would need to be improved. On this evaluation, the loss of pitches to development cannot be justified in principle. However, the loss might be acceptable if alternative equivalent provision is to be made in an equally convenient location. Development has been allowed where other pitches serving the local community are to be equipped with all-weather playing surfaces.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Its a big document, what page is applicable ?

---

The link is at the top

Arguing with a yam at my work, he is absolutely certain that the shares aren't frozen and once they "breeze" through Monday's meeting - his words, not mine - then they just have to wait for the cooling period.

Please tell me this twat isn't correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

Please have a look at the EDC Document on the subject. What you have quoted is completely irrelevant, as they have already stated (as far back as ten years ago) they would allow housing and retail on the site. The blast zone mentioned in the document is now even less relevant, as it now only covers the north west corner of the stadium ,much less than it did ten years ago.


If you want a brief summary of the relevant parts, please read my (admittedly sarcastic) post on it.

---

Only trying to provide information to help with the discussion. Afraid you're wrong about it being irrelevant. Scottish Planning Policy, as it's name suggests, provides the policy background for all planning in Scotland, hence why the Edinburgh LDP reflects the text. It would be taken into account along with LDP if there is a proposal to redevelop.

I haven't been able to find any reference to Tynecastle being a listed building although the old school appears to have a couple of listings.

You can have look yourself http://data.historic-scotland.gov.uk.../f?p=2200:10:0

This a side issue to the ongoing financial shenanigans so apologies for boring people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Its a big document, what page is applicable ?

---

Tynecastle isn't listed by the council in their list of fields/venues etc in their 2010 report:

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/2016/open_space_strategy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlasgowHibee

Arguing with a yam at my work, he is absolutely certain that the shares aren't frozen and once they "breeze" through Monday's meeting - his words, not mine - then they just have to wait for the cooling period.

Please tell me this twat isn't correct.

---

I'm confident they were frozen but less confident on the procedure for unfreezing.
Could be that a 'yes' vote on Monday automatically unfreezes them or it could take a year long court procedure.
Nobody has managed to give a definite answer to that yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brunswickbill

Only trying to provide information to help with the discussion. Afraid you're wrong about it being irrelevant. Scottish Planning Policy, as it's name suggests, provides the policy background for all planning in Scotland, hence why the Edinburgh LDP reflects the text. It would be taken into account along with LDP if there is a proposal to redevelop.

I haven't been able to find any reference to Tynecastle being a listed building although the old school appears to have a couple of listings.

You can have look yourself http://data.historic-scotland.gov.uk.../f?p=2200:10:0

This a side issue to the ongoing financial shenanigans so apologies for boring people.

---

The PBS is definitely NOT listed.

It is noted as a building of Architectural Interest which offers virtually no protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Whatever you think of the football club, with its shielding of beasts and poppy thieving, you can't deny that Tynecastle's a great sporting venue.

---

I keep hearing and reading about PBS being a great place to play, great atmosphere etc. I just don't agree. It's a total s***hole, with a nasty horrible atmosphere. I've said for a long time, particularly as the yaks get more & more angry and the chip on their shoulders gets bigger by the day, that a player from an opposition club - probably Hibs or Celtic - could be seriously assaulted or injured there. I really really hope I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Sheila Rowland played a part alright, but I think as a director. Her vote against the takeover along with Duff and Grey outvoted the other 2 David Rowland stooges.

I think it went on to a share count which we could have lost as well ,but Kenny Waugh who had sold out to Duff and Grey originally paid about £ 250,000 for a share holding that tipped the balance in our favour.

Waugh lost all that money with the parent company administration.

There were a few big players below the radar but the Yam hoards are not amongst them.

---

Waugh sold his shareholding to Mercer late in the game.

Mercer had enough shares but had set himself a target over an above that required which, because Duff did not sell him his shareholding, he failed to meet. Defeated by his own ego.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emerald green

I keep hearing and reading about PBS being a great place to play, great atmosphere etc. I just don't agree. It's a total s***hole, with a nasty horrible atmosphere. I've said for a long time, particularly as the yaks get more & more angry and the chip on their shoulders gets bigger by the day, that a player from an opposition club - probably Hibs or Celtic - could be seriously assaulted or injured there. I really really hope I'm wrong.

---

Most places have a good atmosphere when they're close to capacity (Hampden is an exception to this). No-one will convince me that Tynecastle is capable of generating a better atmosphere than that we saw at ER in the January game against them.

On the subject of planning protection for sporting venues, there is no real precedent in Edinburgh. Old Meadowbank was bulldozed, admittedly to build the current white elephant. Powderhall went the same way in 1999 for a residential development despite being on a flood plain. Marine Gardens was flattened to build a bus depot in 1962.

Outside of Edinburgh Carfin dog track was demolished in 1999.

Strangely West Lothian Council refused planning permission for Sainsbury to build a supermarket on the site of Armadale Stadium. This was largely because the planning department favoured another site for retail on Council-owned land near the station. They did cite as an additional reason to protect the stadium for use by Edinburgh Monarchs speedway team. This was rather unwelcome as Monarchs had been offered enough cash by Sainsbury to build a new track nearby in return for support in the planning application.

I can't think why the City of Edinburgh Council would want to block development of a stadium that is not 'fit for purpose' according to a former Hearts chairman. The Council are strapped for cash and could net a tidy sum from the developers given the proximity of the tram line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleplum

Most places have a good atmosphere when they're close to capacity (Hampden is an exception to this). No-one will convince me that Tynecastle is capable of generating a better atmosphere than that we saw at ER in the January game against them.

---

:agree: We just need a winning team on the pitch and the fans will return in big numbers and create a brilliant atmosphere at ER.