Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

They still have 10% to go and it seems to be the hardest bit the rumours of unrest among the UBIG Creditors could still scupper things before the 27th April fingers crossed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevejordan

They still have 10% to go and it seems to be the hardest bit the rumours of unrest among the UBIG Creditors could still scupper things before the 27th April fingers crossed.

---

What rumours are these?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevejordan

They still have 10% to go and it seems to be the hardest bit the rumours of unrest among the UBIG Creditors could still scupper things before the 27th April fingers crossed.

---

What rumours and from who had enough of these claims
its done and dusted live with it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

What rumours are these?

---

It was on the radio said there was unrest with some of the UBIG Creditors who wanted more money for the 50% and that they can still object during the cooling off period so not done and dusted yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevejordan

It was on the radio said there was unrest with some of the UBIG Creditors who wanted more money for the 50% and that they can still object during the cooling off period so not done and dusted yet.

---

Ok radio gaga was it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevejordan

It was on the radio said there was unrest with some of the UBIG Creditors who wanted more money for the 50% and that they can still object during the cooling off period so not done and dusted yet.

---

It'll just take a wee intervention from Salmond to sort that out.peeing against the wind. The yams are above justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevejordan

It was on the radio said there was unrest with some of the UBIG Creditors who wanted more money for the 50% and that they can still object during the cooling off period so not done and dusted yet.

---

Given your previous, I'll wait for someone else to say it, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

What rumours are these?

---

It was said at the time of the agreement to transfer the 50% shareholding that the decision wasn't made unanimously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

Oh well, back on Planet Earth, I suppose we just have to get on with it.

---

Sadly what I describe happened on Planet Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lord bunberry

It was said at the time of the agreement to transfer the 50% shareholding that the decision wasn't made unanimously.

---

This I know, but that doesn't mean that the vote won't be respected.

I'm moaning about the source, of course. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This I know, but that doesn't mean that the vote won't be respected.

I'm moaning about the source, of course. :wink:

---

Who was the source? or have I gone hook, line and sinker?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Who was the source? or have I gone hook, line and sinker?

---

The poster who claimed there was unrest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Sadly what I describe happened on Planet Earth.

---

Ever get that horrible feeling when you wake up and realise something did happen, and that you didn't dream it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevejordan

It was on the radio said there was unrest with some of the UBIG Creditors who wanted more money for the 50% and that they can still object during the cooling off period so not done and dusted yet.

---

Sorry, but that is just playing on words. Given what they were told about the true value of the PBS, it would be amazing if the decision was unanimous. Everybody knows there's a cooling off period, but it would have been real folly to make thus weeks announcement if there was a significant chance of the deal getting blocked.

No, let the Yams celebrate escaping the chair - but the reality of life imprisonment awaits those cheating conniving no-marks. I know you will agree with those sentiments.

Honest

I posted a link to a BBC article last night which mentioned that the FOH have to hand over 1 million as soon as the deal is done and then 1.2 million for the next two seasons just to pay back the budgie wuman, hope the fans are ready for this as i can see the DD"s dropping once the deal is done.

That's it folks...get another dose of false hope based on a wild forum post on the internet. We've never done that before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_ginger_hibee

That's it folks...get another dose of false hope based on a wild forum post on the internet. We've never done that before.

---

It was far from wild hope. It nearly happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenpaper55

I posted a link to a BBC article last night which mentioned that the FOH have to hand over 1 million as soon as the deal is done and then 1.2 million for the next two seasons just to pay back the budgie wuman, hope the fans are ready for this as i can see the DD"s dropping once the deal is done.

---

It's more than that.

That money is just for working capital. The £2.5m for the club needs to be repaid on top of that.

http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/2...241384_3668500

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

Given what they were told about the true value of the PBS, it would be amazing if the decision was unanimous.

---

Is that the actual true value your talking about or the manufactured "true value" brought into being by the council selling off the Tynie school land at a ludicrously low price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It's more than that.

That money is just for working capital. The £2.5m for the club needs to be repaid on top of that.

http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/2...241384_3668500

---

Yep, the FOH pay £1m immediately, then £1.4m per year for "at least" 2 years as "working capital" and then still have to pay back the budgie her £2.5m over a period of years.

So....assuming they can raise the £2.5 on top of the working capital, the minimum the FOH need to shell out is £6.3m by start of year 3?

Even the Jambo's article states that they need to understand that its £6m over 5 years to be raised. What it doesn't say is that the working capital requirement doesn't go away - they need that on top of the budgie money I imagine.

So, as stated many times, they won't have the cash to splash - on anything - for 3 years minimum IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green day

For what its worth -

Friend / Colleague of mine is a tynecastle season ticket holder, but dont hold that against him, actually a decent guy. Loves to beat us of course, but not stupid enough to think that their financial rollercoaster was consequence free.

Oddly enough, he knows I Am an MP personally too - but had no more inside info than anything on this board. Indeed, Murray told him the same as some of the guys on here, i.e. it was pretty touch and go for a while.

So the mood among sensible people like him yesterday was not "get it right up ye hibees", more relief that his team was still there for him to support.

He said this on thursday:

• They spent money they didnt have
• They stiffed lots of businesses out of money and in among the glee and euphoria this has been forgotten
• The hard work now begins - and Murray also said privately that this is just the start
• They will be skint for years, it is vital that they re-sign some of those promising youngsters
• DDs will provide some cash, but not being in the top div is a huge financial blow
• 2 seasons in the first div (I'm no calling it a championship) is reaslistic
• H

e also laughed and said there is chat about re-signing skacel, something he thinks is daft, but will galvanise fans

Final point, him and I have debated football - to paraphrase (me - how they cheated their way through last 25 years) (him - we are a bunch of underachieving losers) - but all in a decent style.

Neither of us gives it the big one after a derby win - as we know the shoe will shortly be on the other foot.

I reckon that he is representative of the non-kickback / EEN commentators hearts fans - and if that is the case, they know full well and are expecting this to be a very, very tough few years. They may have good season ticket sales next year, but unless those daft laddies accept the £40K PA wages on offer, they may struggle big time to return to the top flight.

........of course, if The Huns go bust again next year??????

---

If any of these young players have the option to go elsewhere for more money or a higher standard of league then they should not sign for Hearts. The abuse which has been dished out on them has been awful considering the slashed wages they have been playing for. They should not damage their careers and potential wages for a cheating club (owned by one of the richest in Britain) and a poisonous support. The lesser talents should obviously sign for them if that is their best option, but I hope the good players will find better opportunities than pulling on a cheat's shirt. They have performed admirably in difficult circumstances and under a hail of abuse and criticism, but they should be careful not to jump from the frying pan into the fire and sign for THE rangers. Hopefully they will get good mentoring from somewhere and leave the cheats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Is that the actual true value your talking about or the manufactured "true value" brought into being by the council selling off the Tynie school land at a ludicrously low price.

---

There can only be one true value, as far as I can see.

Interesting, has fatty Murray came out and said how much £££ FoH have at present?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EK_Hibs

Interesting, has fatty Murray came out and said how much £££ FoH have at present?

---

Are you suggesting he's going to show up with a suitcase full of Monopoly money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green day

Yep, the FOH pay £1m immediately, then £1.4m per year for "at least" 2 years as "working capital" and then still have to pay back the budgie her £2.5m over a period of years.

So....assuming they can raise the £2.5 on top of the working capital, the minimum the FOH need to shell out is £6.3m by start of year 3?

Even the Jambo's article states that they need to understand that its £6m over 5 years to be raised. What it doesn't say is that the working capital requirement doesn't go away - they need that on top of the budgie money I imagine.

So, as stated many times, they won't have the cash to splash - on anything - for 3 years minimum IMO.

---

It's a business plan with some pretty Big holes in it. Budgie may urge restraint, but the punters putting up the working capital for her to play with will want to see a return to the SPFL at the first attempt. They'd better hope Potter is on it from day one.

Mind you, if Sally stays at Der Newco they won't be a shoe in for the title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

It was far from wild hope. It nearly happened.

---

It never happened though. Might have been close (do we really know how close given Jackson's posturing/manipulating?) and it was enjoyable, but this forums predictions/inside knowledge/sources were wrong in the end.

If people want to cling onto stevejordons or anyone else's 'Its no over' then fair enough...enjoy.

People should embrace Hearts and their 'new era' - a bunch of soulless cardigans wandering about Gorgie debating about which member gets the best parking space. Sheikh Mansour comes to Edinburgh it is not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green day

Yep, the FOH pay £1m immediately, then £1.4m per year for "at least" 2 years as "working capital" and then still have to pay back the budgie her £2.5m over a period of years.

So....assuming they can raise the £2.5 on top of the working capital, the minimum the FOH need to shell out is £6.3m by start of year 3?

Even the Jambo's article states that they need to understand that its £6m over 5 years to be raised. What it doesn't say is that the working capital requirement doesn't go away - they need that on top of the budgie money I imagine.

So, as stated many times, they won't have the cash to splash - on anything - for 3 years minimum IMO.

---

It's an interesting model.

On one hand, it gives them an additional £1m over what they would have through "normal" trading. That has to be good for them, on the face of things.

On the other, though, that statement says "It is intended that the Foundation will sign a legally binding agreement on behalf of the supporters". That could be a real problem. What happens if they don't pay the first £1.4m, or the second? Is the deal off? In my mind, that would reduce them to real self-sustainability, without the extra edge that I mentioned above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_ginger_hibee

It never happened though. Might have been close (do we really know how close given Jackson's posturing/manipulating?) and it was enjoyable, but this forums predictions/inside knowledge/sources were wrong in the end.

If people want to cling onto stevejordons or anyone else's 'Its no over' then fair enough...enjoy.

People should embrace Hearts and their 'new era' - a bunch of soulless cardigans wandering about Gorgie debating about which member gets the best parking space. Sheikh Mansour comes to Edinburgh it is not...

---

I don't see anybody doing that. He's been called out enough times, on a variety of things, for anybody sensible to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_ginger_hibee

It never happened though. Might have been close (do we really know how close given Jackson's posturing/manipulating?) and it was enjoyable, but this forums predictions/inside knowledge/sources were wrong in the end.

If people want to cling onto stevejordons or anyone else's 'Its no over' then fair enough...enjoy.

People should embrace Hearts and their 'new era' - a bunch of soulless cardigans wandering about Gorgie debating about which member gets the best parking space. Sheikh Mansour comes to Edinburgh it is not...

---

Wrong, but hardly crazy. Remember they were saying it was going to be over by the start of the season.

We were given informed and accurate opinions and information all along. Who knows, maybe it was this that led to the cloak and dagger stuff at the end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

Wrong, but hardly crazy. Remember they were saying it was going to be over by the start of the season.

We were given informed and accurate opinions and information all along. Who knows, maybe it was this that led to the cloak and dagger stuff at the end?

---

I never said the speculation was crazy or wild..I called the latest post wild. I just called it false hope, which unfortunately it was in the end.