Apologies - I was skimming across the posts and misread your comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Printable View
Apologies - I was skimming across the posts and misread your comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
No problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
I understand your anger, but think of it this way... HMFC now have a debt of £1.5m that they didn't have last week. That has to inform their budgeting for the next few years.
I'm not so sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Given that Rangers (as opposed to The Rangers) have (allegedly) just "won" their tax case, it might be seen to be prudent to accept a reduced amount to save a lengthy and expensive trial/tribunal that could potentiall be "lost".
Guess relegation will hurry things along:)Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
In many ways, that's the "fairest" way. They get sporting sanctions for sporting excesses. They also can't say "oh, it was the tax-man that screwed us".Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker
So they have just paid HMRC £450,000 are due another £500,000 in May, received £300,000 from The Rangers and have raised £600,000 from the share issue ...... Hmmm
By my sums they are still £50,000 short and still have 2 months players salaries to cough up, no further income from the Scottish cup ( aw shame ) but an Easter rd semi which should net them about £250,000 - tax. They are living on a knife edge, oops forgot they have a £24m debt to service as well. I would say that it is not looking too healthy down Tinhutcastle way ......
They're due 500k from Rangers next year so that takes care of that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs7
They also still have the problem of financing the redevelopment of their death-trap, accident-waiting-to-happen main stand. Surely, even this Jambo council can't go on renewing safety certificates indefinitely.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I would imagine that they will try to renegotiate the contracts of the highest earners and offer them 30% or so of what they are currently on.
and if the do pick up those points, there will no doubt be win bonuses due to be paid to their players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
Was in a taxi from Edinburgh airport on Friday when the driver was saying he is mates with something at Swinie (can't remember who now, did at the time and it was an ex player I think on the coaching staff now maybe, jet lag is still scrambling my brain) anyway, he was saying that Sutton is on £3,000 a week appearance money and that the yams just can't afford to play himand are desperate to offload him. I know he came on on Sunday so maybe that's another £3000 out of their coffers :greengrin
Don't know how true this is BTW, you know what taxi drivers are like :duck: :greengrin
Agree something is better than nothing at all but kind of flies in the face of Osborne's declared hard line on tax evaders though. Would also love to see the business plan they presented as well!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
You think? Budgeting doesn't really seem to have figured in anything the yams have done over recent years..
Also sort of on this point. Given that there is still an investigation into dual contracts at oldcogers does this arrangement the yams have come to mean they are effectively owning up to deploying dual contracts for their employees? Is this £1.5m tax they should have paid on the Lith contracts? If so should we be expecting an SPL investigation?Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
There has been no suggestion, other than on here, that the tax case has been about dual contracts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse
Thread hijack, I know, but don't get me started on Osborne. HMRC can only work with the tools they have been given by Government. It's the Government that make the tax laws in the first place, and the Government that have been cutting HMRC's resources for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Given they don't have to start paying it until May, could it be they do not ever expect or intend to pay it.
They will get nowhere near £250000 from the semi. They end up with around one third of gate receipts and will be very lucky to get £100k.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs7
This was a tax bill Hearts were very confident of not having to pay and although they will be happy with the three year deal it is still a big hole in their fragile finances. The equivalent of 5 players on £2k per week.
Nah, for me it ties in with my theory that they have been playing "French cricket" for months.... ie buying time in the hope that they can either find a mug (sorry, buyer) or else milk as much cash as they can until they really do have to circle the wagons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius
Fire-sale in January or letting lots of players go at the end of the season, while relying on youth to plug the gaps. If their kids are anything like Patterson or McHattie they will toil and will be a poor side. In fact, they are already a poor side.
I'll take that.
I'm a bit disappointed nothing has been made public about the alleged damage to the south stand. Let the rest of Scotland see them for what they are, and remove any sympathy for them that's out there.
Paying £500,000 in may will not be a problem for them. They'll be able to pay it out of their Scottish Cup run. Oh, wait a minute ................................:fenlon
It's not the Hibs way, rightly or wrongly.Quote:
Originally Posted by clerriehibs
However, if we did that, the next time some of our own bampots did the same at Tynie, then Hearts would be entitled to do the same.
This is a strange argument. Should you not send a violent criminal to jail because (a) it costs taxpayers money and (2) it would be less work for medical staff at A&E?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
And wotaboot the "pour encourager les autres" principle?
As has been pointed out above, the approach Hector appears to have taken in this case is to act as a bank. HOMFC have spent money they should have given to Hector, and are being allowed to pay it back at a very leisurely pace with interest but NO PENALTIES. Sucks.
Do they not combine both semi gates and final gate. Then split the profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by inglisavhibs
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I thought the yams had disputed whether they should pay this tax bill. So if this is just unpaid tax then it must go back a signficant period of time. Certainly it meant they could pay players more than their rivals and gain an advantage for that period of time.
How much damage was there ?Quote:
Originally Posted by clerriehibs
It's on one of the other threads so best discussed there. I was thinking for this thread more along the lines of they've got the begging bowls out to help them survive but trash ER, which they'll have to pay for ... these costs have to be made public! Far more interesting than Gary O's latest escapade!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
They disputed it, for sure, and it does go back a number of years (as evidenced in the accounts). However, like I say, nobody outside of those involved in the case KNOWS what it is about; all we can do is speculate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse
And, of course, for the next few years they have to pay their players less than their rivals. :greengrin
HMRC have a dual responsibility, and are often torn between the two. On one hand they have to maximise the income to the Treasury, and on the other they have to be seen to uphold the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee
The two don't always sit well together. However, in recent years, I have definitely seen a trend towards the first... and that's understandable in the current climate. Whether it's "right", of course, is an argument that could go on for a long time.
One further point, though. We only have Hearts' word for it that there were no penalties. Given the nature of that website, I wouldn't take that as gospel. Of course, HMRC won't tell us, but for all we know it could be the case that the tax bill is £1m and the penalties 500k.
Hopefully 8526 ticket sales worth of damage. Or preferably more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Assuming they actually survive, I reckon it will be for far longer than a few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
True. The sooner some Hectorworker leaks the facts the better. :agree: :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
This is probably better than liquidation in a way, on several levels:
1. HMRC will get some money, better for the country than it all heading for a submarine in the Baltic Sea. Sure they are celebrating, but from now on surely a missed payment for any of their tax liabilities will have them headed for the blender?
2. They are going to be weak. They think they are weak just now, wait till their core of pricey players are gone.
3. They are still idiots, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they shift most of their pricey players then bring Skackel back on deadline day. I for one would love this; we could hammer a team comprised of him and a bunch of kids.
4. Paying that first instalment in May will take a huge chunk out of next seasons ST money, so they'll be an even worse mess next season than they are currently.
5. Excluding this amount, Romanov's lackey reckoned the fans needed to cough up 2 million to survive the season, they now need 500k more (though I think they use next seasons ST money, expect them to go on sale stupidly early), so the fans haven't even raised a third of the total they need to survive.
But why would it? Now that Hector has indicated that he is willing to bend to the argument that the prospect of some money is always better than none, there can shirley never be a point when it is better to liquidise than to allow to continue intermittently defaulting. It's not as if Hector is going to reach a point when he simply won't stand for HOMFC taking the pish, because that's what they've already been doing for long enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottB