Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

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

---

The story says FOH will not come up with a big lump sum, then at the bottom it says Vlad expects a big lump sum. Non starter

Imo these guys will take over once hearts do a sevco and start again in the third division.

FWIW I know someone that is good mates with the guy fronting the campaign and I believe he's actually one of the better jambos, one of the old school and if he was to take over we may see a more respectful side to hearts again and we'll see an end to this big team pish.

That said they're not going to be investing any money and will likely be in the third division so they'd not have any choice.

The blame game seems to be getting started over on kickback. With only 3000 new shareholders among over 8000 season ticket holders the sides look even so far. Hopefully be a long and bitter scrap.

Quote:

---

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

---

Which faction is this again? And why's he wearing a Rangers tie?

You would think a man of his wealth and standing would be able to afford the bus fares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibbyradge

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.

---

No necessarily.

They could have paid their cheapest players and fielded them instead.

Filling their fixtures wouldn't have been an issue.

So many secretive factions who don't have many - if any - hard facts out there about how much they have raised/their intentions with the money. It's all a bit like some sort of pre-Berlin war Commie state with everyone saying they want unity and happiness fur Der Volk whereas in fact they are all chasing personal glory.

If this chap thinks he's getting Romanov to relinquish control in exchange for a sort of drip-drip of money each month, as opposed to a massive wedge of cash, he's as deluded as the rest of them - old school and respectable or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibercelona

No necessarily.

They could have paid their cheapest players and fielded them instead.

Filling their fixtures wouldn't have been an issue.

---

They're skint, not stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lyonhibs

So many secretive factions who don't have many - if any - hard facts out there about how much they have raised/their intentions with the money. It's all a bit like some sort of pre-Berlin war Commie state with everyone saying they want unity and happiness fur Der Volk whereas in fact they are all chasing personal glory.

If this chap thinks he's getting Romanov to relinquish control in exchange for a sort of drip-drip of money each month, as opposed to a massive wedge of cash, he's as deluded as the rest of them - old school and respectable or not.

---

Agreed.

I do have a bit respect for him as he's trying to do something other than just line romanovs pockets but I think he probably knows the only way he'll get to run hearts is after liquidation of the current lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibbyradge

They're skint, not stupid.

---

I'm sure they would have managed to put something in place to pay the wages of youngsters who would be on no more than 500 quid a week.

Allowing them to field a full quality squad of players on 5000-10000 per week doesn't make sense.


Oh and they're skint and stupid. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibercelona

I'm sure they would have managed to put something in place to pay the wages of youngsters who would be on no more than 500 quid a week.

Oh and they're skint and stupid.

---

What makes you sure of that, considering the reports were that the St Mirren game could have been their last?

And, how could the SPL force them to do so anyway? They can't tell a club who to pay and who not to.

Hearts: "We have no money to pay any of our players".

SPL: "Yes you do".

Hearts: Nyet, we dinny".

SPL: Er...

And why would they? It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. The possibility of abandoned fixtures is helpful to them, in this scenario. They're hardly going to remove that lever.

They may be skint, they may even be stupid, but they're no daft and they're extremely ruthless.

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.

---

This ,this and this. Well said Sir . I WANT them to sign him for exactly all those reasons . He ain't no Sauzee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twa Cairpets

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.

---

I seriously doubt being relegated with them would change Hearts' view of Skacel at all. For whatever reason he turns it on for them, and especially against us. I don't want him anywhere near Tynecastle.

My United supporting mate says Skacel has been average to poor in every single game he's played for them, all except one. Can you guess what one that was?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rawr.rar

I seriously doubt being relegated with them would change Hearts' view of Skacel at all. For whatever reason he turns it on for them, and especially against us. I don't want him anywhere near Tynecastle.

My United supporting mate says Skacel has been average to poor in every single game he's played for them, all except one. Can you guess what one that was?

---

He's just a fricking footballer, and one who is increasingly past his prime.

I don't get this fear of him. If I had a choice, I'd prefer to beat him playing for hearts than for the Arabs. He isn't a supehuman, he's just a deeply unpleasant scrote who happened to fall lucky with Hearts teams who were paying their way to oblivion.

I agree that the yams will still be knocking one out over their rudi posters though long after the PBS become sheltered housing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibbyradge

What makes you sure of that, considering the reports were that the St Mirren game could have been their last?

And, how could the SPL force them to do so anyway? They can't tell a club who to pay and who not to.

Hearts: "We have no money to pay any of our players".

SPL: "Yes you do".

Hearts: Nyet, we dinny".

SPL: Er...

And why would they? It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. The possibility of abandoned fixtures is helpful to them, in this scenario. They're hardly going to remove that lever.

They may be skint, they may even be stupid, but they're no daft and they're extremely ruthless.

---

They have been paying players and staff though, albeit late all the time.

How difficult would it be for the SFA to put a cap on how much they can pay players and if a player costs over X amount each week, they don't pay or field that player and that player has the power to terminate their contract if they wish to?

It would be both beneficial to Hearts and the SPL if the SFA would grow the balls to put something like this in place.

Surely it makes sense to reduce their monthly losses as much as possible, even if not completely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibercelona

They have been paying players and staff though, albeit late all the time.

How difficult would it be for the SFA to put a cap on how much they can pay players and if a player costs over X amount each week, they don't pay or field that player and that player has the power to terminate their contract if they wish to?

It would be both beneficial to Hearts and the SPL if the SFA would grow the balls to put something like this in place.

Surely it makes sense to reduces their monthly losses as much as possible, even if not completely?

---

At the moment, very difficult, as it would be illegal.

Rod did say the other night that the SFA are working on financial fair-play rules which should mirror those of UEFA and FIFA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

At the moment, very difficult, as it would be illegal.

Rod did say the other night that the SFA are working on financial fair-play rules which should mirror those of UEFA and FIFA.

---

But surely what Hearts are doing is illegal? They are in breach of contract time and time again. You would think that their would already be something in place for such circumstances.

I just can't believe that there isn't...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibercelona

But surely what Hearts are doing is illegal? They are in breach of contract time and time again. You would think that their would already be something in place for such circumstances.

I just can't believe that there isn't...

---

There are two parties to a contract of employment. If one party doesn't comply with their own responsibilities, then that breaks the law of contract.

Thus far, if we are to believe what we are told, the original contracts were modified... and the new contracts complied with.

So far, no breach of contract and therefore no breach of law.

If there were, then those injured parties have the right to sue.

None have, therefore one deduces that nothing illegal has taken place.

Simples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

There are two parties to a contract of employment. If one party doesn't comply with their own responsibilities, then that breaks the law of contract.

Thus far, if we are to believe what we are told, the original contracts were modified... and the new contracts complied with.

So far, no breach of contract and therefore no breach of law.

If there were, then those injured parties have the right to sue.

None have, therefore one deduces that nothing illegal has taken place.

Simples.

---

In other words, they may be sleazy, lowlife con-men who have no morals or scruples whatsoever, but at the moment they're not criminal sleazy, lowlife con-men who have no morals or scruples whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twa Cairpets

In other words, they may be sleazy, lowlife con-men who have no morals or scruples whatsoever, but at the moment they're not criminal sleazy, lowlife con-men who have no morals or scruples whatsoever.

---

Nope, ... but as Dusty sang.... "nothing has been proved." :greengrin

Would it be against the law for the club to say the players have been paid when infact they are differed? Just wondering if the tramps can do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russell The Dug

Would it be against the law for the club to say the players have been paid when infact they are differed? Just wondering if the tramps can do that?

---

Is it against the law to lie? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twa Cairpets

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.

---

That's exactly my point. No one knows, Yams have a proven history of telling porkies from building a shiny new stadium to signing World Cup stars & yet in this case we ( or some posters ) seem to be accepting their word that contracts have been amended - why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

That's exactly my point. No one knows, Yams have a proven history of telling porkies from building a shiny new stadium to signing World Cup stars & yet in this case we ( or some posters ) seem to be accepting their word that contracts have been amended - why?

---

Why not?

If there is a doubt, I would have thought that PFA Scotland, for one, would have been informed. They, in turn, would have advised the SPL.

Much as we would like it to be otherwise, the absence of any evidence to the contrary suggests that there is no case to answer.

Personally, I'd prefer to hang the Hearts for stuff that they have done, rather than for stuff that we think, or hope, they might have done. (a phrase I often alluded to in the HunsInMeltdown thread)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

That's exactly my point. No one knows, Yams have a proven history of telling porkies from building a shiny new stadium to signing World Cup stars & yet in this case we ( or some posters ) seem to be accepting their word that contracts have been amended - why?

---

Because the players, who have complained about non payment in the past, also say their contracts were amended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

That's exactly my point. No one knows, Yams have a proven history of telling porkies from building a shiny new stadium to signing World Cup stars & yet in this case we ( or some posters ) seem to be accepting their word that contracts have been amended - why?

---

It would be hugely improper for the SPL to say "yes, we have received all the correct paper work from Hearts". If its all ok, then frankly its got SFA (see what I did there :greengrin) to do with anyone else. What right would the SPL have to talk about the private business arrangements of one of their clubs unless they were in breach?
I agree with CWG. They'll get rogered for stuff that they have done, lets not worried about the might'ves or could'ves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Is it against the law to lie? :confused:

---

For a company to say the wages of there employees have been paid when its not the truth has to be against the law surely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Is it against the law to lie? :confused:

---

If it ever was to be can i be the first to suggest arresting those that described Ed de Graaf as a box to box footballer....in fact can we lock up anyone who referred to him as a footballer !

Quote:

---

Much as we would like it to be otherwise, the absence of any evidence to the contrary suggests that there is no case to answer.

That's pretty much been Yams' response to us for the last 3 years in which we've been forecasting their financial demise! :wink: There was no apparent evidence they were engaging in a Lithuanian tax scam either but they've agreed to pay £1.5mm to make it go away.

Personally, I'd prefer to hang the Hearts for stuff that they have done, rather than for stuff that we think, or hope, they might have done. (a phrase I often alluded to in the HunsInMeltdown thread)

---

I think you have this the wrong way round, I'm suggesting they haven't done something, ie physically amended contracts. I have absolutely no doubt the players verbally agreed a wage deferment but IMO ( & that's all it is ) the "contract amendment" phrase was dreamt up & agreed by all concerned to get Yams off the hook re the new regulations. It's interesting that Dunfermline ( who obviously are not governed by SPL rules ) have not had the need for any "contract amendments" despite being in a fairly similar situation to Yams.

I do believe however that if Yams default again in near future, as I believe they will, the whole sorry facade will collapse & SPL will be forced to take action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twa Cairpets

It would be hugely improper for the SPL to say "yes, we have received all the correct paper work from Hearts". If its all ok, then frankly its got SFA (see what I did there :greengrin) to do with anyone else. What right would the SPL have to talk about the private business arrangements of one of their clubs unless they were in breach?
I agree with CWG. They'll get rogered for stuff that they have done, lets not worried about the might'ves or could'ves

---

Em, because Yams were in breach, that's why they're still under a transfer embargo. Yams have no problem in boasting when they finally pay tax, why would there be a problem in saying they've provided contract amendments to the SPL? Maybe it's my ( far too ) many years of audit experience that makes me cynical but I remain surprised at netters' willingness to accept Yam statements at face value.
On the other hand I do have a Nigerian friend who would like to give you £5mm if you only provide your bank a/c details!! :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

This ,this and this. Well said Sir . I WANT them to sign him for exactly all those reasons . He ain't no Sauzee.

---

Definitely. I want him in a hopeless squad that we can turn over at will. Hope his 51 numbered Hearts shirt he'll undoubtedly ask for keeps him warm...