Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

The funniest thing is that it doesn't get much airtime on kickback and this that dare to question the statement from the club are seen as a Hobo unless they have min 5k posts!!

Most live debate is the risk that Dundee United might keep Skacel until end of season and surely this would scupper the return to the pink palace. Oh the irony.

Please sir, can I have some more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibbyradge

The PFA would oppose that as it wouldn't be fair on their members.

Whatever we think or hope, they, like the players, have to make the assumption that the salaries will eventually get paid.

So, if players were not allowed to play, they may miss out on bonuses for appearances, goals, points gained etc.

The SPL will take the same view so punishing the club itself is the fairest option.

If they had proof that wages would not be settled, the players could walk away from their contracts and no doubt, most, if not all, would.

---

The players knew the risks when they signed for that joke of a team, i've no sympathy with any of them especially that idiot ryan stevenson. The only way to properly punish the club whilst maintaining fairness for other spl clubs is by banning unpaid players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #FromTheCapital

The players knew the risks when they signed for that joke of a team, i've no sympathy with any of them especially that idiot ryan stevenson. The only way to properly punish the club whilst maintaining fairness for other spl clubs is by banning unpaid players.

---

Exactly, they knew that before signing, its their own fault. Stop them from playing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #FromTheCapital

The players knew the risks when they signed for that joke of a team, i've no sympathy with any of them especially that idiot ryan stevenson. The only way to properly punish the club whilst maintaining fairness for other spl clubs is by banning unpaid players.

---

Seems to be a popular opinion on here but I doubt this would be much of a punishment to the club. All that would happen there is that the Yams would ensure their first team players were paid to allow them to put out a team on match day, whilst leaving all their other staff, playing and non playing, unpaid, the very ones who can least afford not to be paid.
It has to be a points deduction for me, increasing with every month that staff go unpaid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibbyradge

The PFA would oppose that as it wouldn't be fair on their members.

Whatever we think or hope, they, like the players, have to make the assumption that the salaries will eventually get paid.

So, if players were not allowed to play, they may miss out on bonuses for appearances, goals, points gained etc.

The SPL will take the same view so punishing the club itself is the fairest option.

If they had proof that wages would not be settled, the players could walk away from their contracts and no doubt, most, if not all, would.

---

I can't see how its fair to its other members the members who abide by the rules and pay their members on time?

Every other club are being penalised for playing fair. You can't be seen to be abusing the rules, and shutting this loophole seems to me the fairest way to treat all its members and their clubs.

If they sign Skacel then it is crystal clear that the SFA don't give a flying ****.

Read somewhere yesterday that the players are not too happy about having to defer wages when the club are signing players they obviously cannot afford.

Did one in particular not refuse to sit in the bench V Aberdeen on Saturday as a protest against all the **** they are having to take?

Mind you, the day the players, the fans and the SFA/SPL grow a pair and sort it all out, will be the day John Robertson stops eating pies.......,


:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rawr.rar

If they sign Skacel then it is crystal clear that the SFA don't give a flying ****.

---

I'm not sure why you say that.

If Hearts bring the salaries up to date, the transfer embargo gets lifted.

They can sign whoever they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibbyradge

I'm not sure why you say that.

If Hearts bring the salaries up to date, the transfer embargo gets lifted.

They can sign whoever they want.

---

Its all very well that they can bring current salaries up to date, they've just raised at least 800k through a share issue ffs. But they are just going to have the same problems again if they add to their squad, and they won't be able to rely on share issues after this one. The ban should remain in place until they have demonstrated the ability to pay salaries on time for a sustained period of time. Can anyone remember the last time they paid salaries in full and on time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

I can't see how its fair to its other members the members who abide by the rules and pay their members on time?

Every other club are being penalised for playing fair. You can't be seen to be abusing the rules, and shutting this loophole seems to me the fairest way to treat all its members and their clubs.

---

The PFA represent the players, not the member clubs. They wouldn't allow the SPL to ban their players in these circumstances.

However, thinking it through, if Hearts hadn't been allowed to play the players they hadn't paid, they wouldn't have been able to fulfil their fixtures for the last 2 months.

That would have financially hurt all the teams they were due to play away from the PBS, including Hibs, and made an even bigger mockery of the league.

A transfer embargo followed by points deductions for further breaches seems about right to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #FromTheCapital

Its all very well that they can bring current salaries up to date, they've just raised at least 800k through a share issue ffs. But they are just going to have the same problems again if they add to their squad, and they won't be able to rely on share issues after this one. The ban should remain in place until they have demonstrated the ability to pay salaries on time for a sustained period of time. Can anyone remember the last time they paid salaries in full and on time?

---

How long is a sustained period? Remember, technically, Hearts didn't fail to pay their players on time last month.

I'd prefer they lift the transfer embargo, let them sign who they want, then dock points should they breach the rules again.

Just reading the thread over the past few days, and a few thoughts occurred to me.


1) Who gives a flying one about Skacel? Good player in his day, especially with a strong team behind him. He's now 33, hardly setting the heather on fire at Tannadice, and while him signing would undoubtedly give a short term boost to the hordes of yamfuddery, think of the longer term downside to them. Marginalised in a team of unproven and struggling kids. Resented by other senior players because he would undoubtedly demand and get a greater fantasy salary than his current worth. He'd increasingly struggle on the pitch, and it would be interesting to see how long he would retain icon status if he was in a team going down the pan or relegated.

We certainly shouldn't be worried him. He has had his moment in the sun. This is a different Hibs now, and I'd love to see his big nosed coupon greeting into his blooded turd strip when Hibs rip them a new one.

2) You cant ban players for not getting paid. That is punishing the victim (be they willing victims or not a la Stevenson). It would also as has been said mean that payment would be selective on current football ability, which would further impoverish youth team, coaches etc. Funny, but not fair. The punishment must be on the club, and must be points.

3) Sadly, under the rules agreed earlier this year, you cannot punish the club for deferring wages. It might not seem fair, but if its a change of contract willingly agreed then that is nothing to do with the SPL or SFA. Hearts can, rightly, say "we've not broken any rule, you can't punish us". if these wages are delayed without agreement then that's a different matter. Much as we may want them hung dran and quartered, the SPL cannot say or do anything until there is a breach.

4) Interesting to note that the prospectus claims of "Share money goes to youth development" has conveniently been dropped in Fuddytoes increasingly pleading announcements. At least they're now saying its for tax and wages. By Hearts standards that is startling honesty I suppose.

Finally, whatever happens and for the benefit of the terminal pessimists on here such as Jim44 and GoldenBear: Unless Vlad suddenly decides to write everything off, (which he of course won't) Hearts will suffer. Either they'll die or they'll be hamstrung for years. These are the only two options. There isn't a plot to save them. The SPL/SFA aren't being soft on them. They'll suffer in the same was that, ultimately, Rangers did. We know Rangers will be back because they have big crowds and will always get more money than we will. Hearts? Not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twa Cairpets

Just reading the thread over the past few days, and a few thoughts occurred to me.


1) Who gives a flying one about Skacel? Good player in his day, especially with a strong team behind him. He's now 33, hardly setting the heather on fire at Tannadice, and while him signing would undoubtedly give a short term boost to the hordes of yamfuddery, think of the longer term downside to them. Marginalised in a team of unproven and struggling kids. Resented by other senior players because he would undoubtedly demand and get a greater fantasy salary than his current worth. He'd increasingly struggle on the pitch, and it would be interesting to see how long he would retain icon status if he was in a team going down the pan or relegated.

We certainly shouldn't be worried him. He has had his moment in the sun. This is a different Hibs now, and I'd love to see his big nosed coupon greeting into his blooded turd strip when Hibs rip them a new one.

2) You cant ban players for not getting paid. That is punishing the victim (be they willing victims or not a la Stevenson). It would also as has been said mean that payment would be selective on current football ability, which would further impoverish youth team, coaches etc. Funny, but not fair. The punishment must be on the club, and must be points.

3) Sadly, under the rules agreed earlier this year, you cannot punish the club for deferring wages. It might not seem fair, but if its a change of contract willingly agreed then that is nothing to do with the SPL or SFA. Hearts can, rightly, say "we've not broken any rule, you can't punish us". if these wages are delayed without agreement then that's a different matter. Much as we may want them hung dran and quartered, the SPL cannot say or do anything until there is a breach.

4) Interesting to note that the prospectus claims of "Share money goes to youth development" has conveniently been dropped in Fuddytoes increasingly pleading announcements. At least they're now saying its for tax and wages. By Hearts standards that is startling honesty I suppose.

Finally, whatever happens and for the benefit of the terminal pessimists on here such as Jim44 and GoldenBear: Unless Vlad suddenly decides to write everything off, (which he of course won't) Hearts will suffer. Either they'll die or they'll be hamstrung for years. These are the only two options. There isn't a plot to save them. The SPL/SFA aren't being soft on them. They'll suffer in the same was that, ultimately, Rangers did. We know Rangers will be back because they have big crowds and will always get more money than we will. Hearts? Not so much.

---

I concur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibbyradge

How long is a sustained period? Remember, technically, Hearts didn't fail to pay their players on time last month.

I'd prefer they lift the transfer embargo, let them sign who they want, then dock points should they breach the rules again.

---

I'd say at least 3 months before any ban is lifted, at the end of the day its better for everyone including hearts that they don't sign any players.
Docking points would also be a fair punishment but theres probably more chance of the pope going on an orange march

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twa Cairpets

Just reading the thread over the past few days, and a few thoughts occurred to me.


1) Who gives a flying one about Skacel? Good player in his day, especially with a strong team behind him. He's now 33, hardly setting the heather on fire at Tannadice, and while him signing would undoubtedly give a short term boost to the hordes of yamfuddery, think of the longer term downside to them. Marginalised in a team of unproven and struggling kids. Resented by other senior players because he would undoubtedly demand and get a greater fantasy salary than his current worth. He'd increasingly struggle on the pitch, and it would be interesting to see how long he would retain icon status if he was in a team going down the pan or relegated.

We certainly shouldn't be worried him. He has had his moment in the sun. This is a different Hibs now, and I'd love to see his big nosed coupon greeting into his blooded turd strip when Hibs rip them a new one.

2) You cant ban players for not getting paid. That is punishing the victim (be they willing victims or not a la Stevenson). It would also as has been said mean that payment would be selective on current football ability, which would further impoverish youth team, coaches etc. Funny, but not fair. The punishment must be on the club, and must be points.

3) Sadly, under the rules agreed earlier this year, you cannot punish the club for deferring wages. It might not seem fair, but if its a change of contract willingly agreed then that is nothing to do with the SPL or SFA. Hearts can, rightly, say "we've not broken any rule, you can't punish us". if these wages are delayed without agreement then that's a different matter. Much as we may want them hung dran and quartered, the SPL cannot say or do anything until there is a breach.

4) Interesting to note that the prospectus claims of "Share money goes to youth development" has conveniently been dropped in Fuddytoes increasingly pleading announcements. At least they're now saying its for tax and wages. By Hearts standards that is startling honesty I suppose.

Finally, whatever happens and for the benefit of the terminal pessimists on here such as Jim44 and GoldenBear: Unless Vlad suddenly decides to write everything off, (which he of course won't) Hearts will suffer. Either they'll die or they'll be hamstrung for years. These are the only two options. There isn't a plot to save them. The SPL/SFA aren't being soft on them. They'll suffer in the same was that, ultimately, Rangers did. We know Rangers will be back because they have big crowds and will always get more money than we will. Hearts? Not so much.

---

Oi! - I ain't a "terminal pessimist!" I hope your vision of the future is correct but ----------- I doubt it.:greengrin

I 'm still of the opinion that the maroon balloons will stumble on regardless. They'll continue to sign players others can't afford and they'll continue to face endless court actions for late payments. The real uncertainty is the extent of Vlad's personal wealth and his future commitment to his laughing stock of a Club. We've had countless false dawns over the expected demise of THEM but they're still there and I can't honestly see things changing in the near or even distant future. But maybe I'm being over pessimistic. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Bear

Oi! - I ain't a "terminal pessimist!" I hope your vision of the future is correct but ----------- I doubt it.:greengrin

I 'm still of the opinion that the maroon balloons will stumble on regardless. They'll continue to sign players others can't afford and they'll continue to face endless court actions for late payments. The real uncertainty is the extent of Vlad's personal wealth and his future commitment to his laughing stock of a Club. We've had countless false dawns over the expected demise of THEM but they're still there and I can't honestly see things changing in the near or even distant future. But maybe I'm being over pessimistic. :rolleyes:

---

By all accounts, it's slipping away "day by day" ... :greengrin

http://www.nasdaqomxbaltic.com/marke...012&period=day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZrgxHvNNUc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibee92

Please sir, can I have some more?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

By all accounts, it's slipping away "day by day" ... :greengrin

http://www.nasdaqomxbaltic.com/marke...012&period=day

---

My favourite view - just to show how much he's lost....
http://www.nasdaqomxbaltic.com/marke...&period=3years

http://www.nasdaqomxbaltic.com/marke...=12&end_y=2012

Didnt he 'invest' in them in 2004?

Money laundering can be good for business.

Quote:

---

3) Sadly, under the rules agreed earlier this year, you cannot punish the club for deferring wages. It might not seem fair, but if its a change of contract willingly agreed then that is nothing to do with the SPL or SFA. Hearts can, rightly, say "we've not broken any rule, you can't punish us". if these wages are delayed without agreement then that's a different matter. Much as we may want them hung dran and quartered, the SPL cannot say or do anything until there is a breach.

There isn't a plot to save them. The SPL/SFA aren't being soft on them. They'll suffer in the same was that, ultimately, Rangers did. We know Rangers will be back because they have big crowds and will always get more money than we will. Hearts? Not so much.

---

I'm surprised at you guys saying this. Rule A6.21 clearly states clubs must comply with Players' Contracts of Service. Now do you really think Yams went & physically amended 10 or 12 players' contracts & if so what would the amendment say? Unless it gave HOMFC authority to keep delaying wages in perpetuity then the amendment would either have to have an end date or there would need to be a separate amendment every ( non ) payday. Do you think this happened or do you think Yams advised SPL they hadn't paid wages on time but players were ok with that & that was end of matter? Do you think anyone at SPL requested to see or were provided with any contract amendment?
If like me you believe the latter scenario is more likely then I think it follows that SPL are indeed being soft on them. I'm not sure there's a plot to save them but ( understandably ) I'm sure SPL are desperate that Yams make it to the end of the season to avoid a huge double whammy in 2012/13.
Like you I think they're stuffed regardless but they now have at least £1mm more than they should have ( share issue plus bigger crowds ) & they continue to pick up points & associated revenue by playing players who they haven't paid - that is ludicrous!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonty

My favourite view - just to show how much he's lost....
http://www.nasdaqomxbaltic.com/marke...&period=3years

---

A new screen saver perhaps :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

Surely any transfer embargo would only be lifted once all wages have been paid in full, even deferred wages? :confused:

One way round this is just to ban any players from playing who have not been paid, that should be the next rule change in my opinion.

---

Quite right Gary, this has been annoying me for ages, but, particularly since they signed Beattie.

I mightve mentioned it on the eve of the final in The Persey, memory of that night is a bit vague!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Bear

Oi! - I ain't a "terminal pessimist!" I hope your vision of the future is correct but ----------- I doubt it.:greengrin

I 'm still of the opinion that the maroon balloons will stumble on regardless. They'll continue to sign players others can't afford and they'll continue to face endless court actions for late payments. The real uncertainty is the extent of Vlad's personal wealth and his future commitment to his laughing stock of a Club. We've had countless false dawns over the expected demise of THEM but they're still there and I can't honestly see things changing in the near or even distant future. But maybe I'm being over pessimistic. :rolleyes:

---

I understand the skepticism over the outcome given the brinksmanship of Vlad, but its clear now that things are changing.

Compared to last year, here's as I see it.

1) Begging bowl out
2) Definitive statements of impending doom from the PBS
3) Big earners oot the door in January, not signing the likes of Beattie for example
4) Signing embargo. This is why the Lith guy isn't playing next weekend, by the way.
5) If they have no embargo in Jan, and they lose, say, Webster, Berra, Driver and a few other of the big earners, then the replacement of them with a jobless Lithuanian on £500 a week is no biggie for me.
6) They've had a share issue which although relatively commendable from our deluded chums in terms of response totally reams that source of income.
7) HMFC deal is struck for historic debt. If they default, they're dead. There's £500K a year gone for the next three years. As someone said, that's 5 players on £100K gone to pay for historical mismanagement of the likes of Beslija and Beniusas. Don't believe Vlads whining. They must pay this.

I think you're right, by the way. They will stumble along, and will turn into a kind of Dundee, ultimately. Once were quite a big club, but saddled with years of mismanagement ended up permanently hobbled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

I'm surprised at you guys saying this. Rule A6.21 clearly states clubs must comply with Players' Contracts of Service. Now do you really think Yams went & physically amended 10 or 12 players' contracts & if so what would the amendment say? Unless it gave HOMFC authority to keep delaying wages in perpetuity then the amendment would either have to have an end date or there would need to be a separate amendment every ( non ) payday. Do you think this happened or do you think Yams advised SPL they hadn't paid wages on time but players were ok with that & that was end of matter? Do you think anyone at SPL requested to see or were provided with any contract amendment?
If like me you believe the latter scenario is more likely then I think it follows that SPL are indeed being soft on them. I'm not sure there's a plot to save them but ( understandably ) I'm sure SPL are desperate that Yams make it to the end of the season to avoid a huge double whammy in 2012/13.
Like you I think they're stuffed regardless but they now have at least £1mm more than they should have ( share issue plus bigger crowds ) & they continue to pick up points & associated revenue by playing players who they haven't paid - that is ludicrous!

---

I don't know, but neither does anyone else outwith HMFC or the SPL. However, I'd like to think that the SPL, being a entity made up of the members, wouldn't cut Hearts any slack if they were getting an advantage by breaking the newly implemented rules. On balance, I'd say they probably did comply with the minimum requirements of the regulations, but that isnt based on any evidence, just a balance of probability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Bear

Oi! - I ain't a "terminal pessimist!" I hope your vision of the future is correct but ----------- I doubt it.:greengrin

---

Oh yes you are .......... Just admit it, there's safety in numbers remember. There must be something in the water down our way. By the way, are you not getting fed up with these depressingly optimistic posts? :-)

http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-ev...onth-1-2685337

Quick someone sign him up on the foundation of hearts website.

£100 a month? Their debt will be paid off in no time at all at that rate!

This boy is worse than Vlad , " eh awright Vald ma boy ? Goan gis the club and stadium for hee haw and while yer at it bung us a ton a month as a sweetener" Awesome stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocopops1875

This boy is worse than Vlad , " eh awright Vald ma boy ? Goan gis the club and stadium for hee haw and while yer at it bung us a ton a month as a sweetener" Awesome stuff

---

So in other words he's a typical deluded yam? It's all a bit unseemly for the third force in Scottish football :wink:

:hilarious

So much for their great rescue operation.

"Be a pal and geez us £100 a month to help us oot Vladdy"

:lolyam: