Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim44

john 'champion cake eater' robertson

We must continue to fight by turning up to games and supporting the club and the team as much as we can and I stand by my statement that, 'as long as I am alive, I will not let this club die'.

---

what an incredibly idiotic thing to say, seriously, do they put extra additives in the water over gorgi way :jamboclow:crazy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I have to say that this was my understanding of FOI. I'm not an expert but, if access to HMFC's rates account was made available to Joe Public, then that would suggest that my own account with the Council could also be made available. Sod that.

For me, though, what would be more interesting would be, if they are in arrears with their Rates, what action has been taken by CEC to recover that amount? Indeed, has there been any favour shown to HMFC over other businesses? That, for me, is what FOI is about.

Keep up the pressure, though, GG. You might shake something from the tree yet. :agree:

---

Spoke to the FOI case officer and got the usual bull*****.Don't think she appreciated my point that considering all the other unpaid tax bills,winding-up orders and unpaid wages, HOMFC 's commercial interest cannot be damaged any more.

Anyway request for a decision review has been sent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

Robbo is a prick, they wanted to raise £1.79m but have not even reached half that amount, yet its high fives all round?

Its like frolicking with a salamander street hooker, it wont even touch the sides.

---

I think you are being a bit unfair there BH. To raise £800,000 in that time is a good effort IMO. Just because they didn't raise half the amount they WANTED to raise doesn't mean it wasn't a good effort by their fans.
I still don't think raising the £2m they originally asked for would save them long term as even the wee overweight striker admitted that this was just to get them to end of this season, then the same fight starts again basically, but fair play to the fans who have thrown their cash away by 'investing' in Vlads rip off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB62

I think you are being a bit unfair there BH. To raise £800,000 in that time is a good effort IMO. Just because they didn't raise half the amount they WANTED to raise doesn't mean it wasn't a good effort by their fans.
I still don't think raising the £2m they originally asked for would save them long term as even the wee overweight striker admitted that this was just to get them to end of this season, then the same fight starts again basically, but fair play to the fans who have thrown their cash away by 'investing' in Vlads rip off.

---

:agree:

Said it before on here, but I think it was a superb effort. Just such a shame :greengrin that it was misguided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #FromTheCapital

Wee fat Robbo is fast becoming the Ally McCoist of this whole sorry saga. Was once even slightly likeable but now is just whoring himself to the corrupt cause

---

Think he's looking for McGlynns Joab!!! ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

If they haven't been paid today, they're not in breach. If they get paid on Monday, the SPL will surely say it's unreasonable to take action, as the pay date was at the weekend (which is only fair).

If, however, they haven't been paid by close of business on Monday.......

---

If they are due to be paid on the 16th then that is Sunday. So technically if they don't get paid till Monday then the wages are late. :agree:

Just been on beggingbowl.co.uk and seen a few wee moans that its Xmas and the shop has hardly got any home tops and no away tops and no more due in.... Not much more to be made out if merch then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibeesdude

Just been on beggingbowl.co.uk and seen a few wee moans that its Xmas and the shop has hardly got any home tops and no away tops and no more due in.... Not much more to be made out if merch then

---

Suppliers would likely want paid up front as they wouldn't give them credit. Such things happened to the various retail chains that have collapsed in recent years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish

If they are due to be paid on the 16th then that is Sunday. So technically if they don't get paid till Monday then the wages are late. :agree:

---

I work for a BIG company, we always get paid before midnight on the last banking day before due date. That's how BIG and almost all small companies operate. Now as the Yams keep telling us they are the big team then I'd fully expect that to be backed up by the players being paid in full today :D

However.... If it. Doesnt happen today
Then
1) they ain't no big team
2) what changes between now and Monday to let them pay then? (assuming its paid of course!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish

If they are due to be paid on the 16th then that is Sunday. So technically if they don't get paid till Monday then the wages are late. :agree:

---

I don't think anything will be said or done if they aren't paid till Monday. However, you would have thought that, irrespective of how much or how little they have begged, stolen or borrowed, given Fedotovas's confidence that December's wages would be paid, they would have gone out of their way to deal with it today, even just to give a bit of assurance to their players and supporters that things are kind of normal and looking up. If the money is there and they wait till Monday, they are only piling more dirt on their already severely tarnished reputation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Alf R

I work for a BIG company, we always get paid before midnight on the last banking day before due date. That's how BIG and almost all small companies operate. Now as the Yams keep telling us they are the big team then I'd fully expect that to be backed up by the players being paid in full today :D

However.... If it. Doesnt happen today
Then
1) they ain't no big team
2) what changes between now and Monday to let them pay then? (assuming its paid of course!)

---

In the interests of a balance here, I also work for a big company and as I said in an earlier post I get paid on the 15th of the month. When it falls on a weekend, sometimes I get paid on the Friday, sometimes on the Monday. I do not however go complaining to HR if it is not paid on the Friday. Just checked my bank account online and been paid!!!!! Baisturds!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius

In the interests of a balance here, I also work for a big company and as I said in an earlier post I get paid on the 15th of the month. When it falls on a weekend, sometimes I get paid on the Friday, sometimes on the Monday. I do not however go complaining to HR if it is not paid on the Friday. Just checked my bank account online and been paid!!!!! Baisturds!

---

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius

In the interests of a balance here.........

---

We'll have none of that round here :tsk tsk:

McGlynn's latest ramblings on the BBC site says they are to be paid today...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottB

McGlynn's latest ramblings on the BBC site says they are to be paid today...

---

Wages this month was never going to be an issue with the share issue home games etc.

What gets me is that next months wages will probably be late again with very little home games and no share cash coming in. So what happens is they get another transfer embargo starting in Feb. That can't be right surely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim44

I don't think anything will be said or done if they aren't paid till Monday. However, you would have thought that, irrespective of how much or how little they have begged, stolen or borrowed, given Fedotovas's confidence that December's wages would be paid, they would have gone out of their way to deal with it today, even just to give a bit of assurance to their players and supporters that things are kind of normal and looking up. If the money is there and they wait till Monday, they are only piling more dirt on their already severely tarnished reputation.

---

In fairness, and extra 3 days in the bank would yield around £15 interest at the Bank of England base rates, so Hearts are just being financially prudent. Your misunderstanding of Big Club finance doesn't mean that this master stroke of fiscal sense is anything other than a clear indication of their newly founded even-keel.

Yamanomics. If you're insane, it makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey

We'll have none of that round here :tsk tsk:

---

Don't worry Mikey, it will never catch on. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius

In the interests of a balance here......

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twa Cairpets

In fairness...........

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius

Don't worry Mikey, it will never catch on. :greengrin

---

See what you've started :grr:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russell The Dug

Wages this month was never going to be an issue with the share issue home games etc.

What gets me is that next months wages will probably be late again with very little home games and no share cash coming in. So what happens is they get another transfer embargo starting in Feb. That can't be right surely?

---

:agree: Even tho' they can still sign free agents, a signing embargo outwith transfer windows is inappropriate.

They are discussing this overby:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/116814601/Hearts-466-06-12-12

Something about Hearts, Ubig and Ukio.
Maybe one of our legal/fiscal experts could make sense of it.

Some of the Yams are uneasy about it.

According to the paper, it is being done under section 410 and 466 of the companies act 1985.

410,-(1) The following provisions of this Chapter have effect

unless

for the purpose of securing the registration in Scotland of
registered.

charges created by companies.
(2)


Every charge created by a company, being a charge to
property or any part of it is conferred by the charge, void
against the liquidator and any creditor of the company unless
the prescribed particulars of the charge, together with a copy
(certified in the prescribed manner to be a correct copy) of the
instrument (if any) by which the charge is created or evidenced,
are delivered to or received by the registrar of companies for
registration in the manner required by this Chapter within 21
days after the date of the creation of the charge.
Companies Act 1985 c. 6 277
(3) Subsection (2) is without prejudice to any contract or PART XII
obligation for repayment of the money secured by the charge ; CHAPTER II
and when a charge becomes void under this section the money
secured by it immediately becomes payable.
(4) This section applies to the following charges-
(a) a charge on land wherever situated, or any interest in
such land (not including a charge for any rent, ground
annual or other periodical sum payable in respect of
the land, but including a charge created by a heritable
security within the meaning of section 9(8) of the Conveyancing
and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970), 1970 c. 35.
( B) a security over the uncalled share capital of the company,
© a security over incorporeal moveable property of any
of the following categories-
-W the book debts of the company,
(ii) calls made but not paid,
(iii) goodwill,
(iv) a patent or a licence under a patent,
(v) a trademark,
(vi) a copyright or a licence under a copyright,
(d) a security over a ship or aircraft or any share in a ship,
and
(e) a floating charge.
(5) In this Chapter " company " (except in section 424)
means an incorporated company registered in Scotland ; " registrar
of companies " means the registrar or other officer performing
under this Act the duty of

Copied from Kickback. Anyone know what it means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

According to the paper, it is being done under section 410 and 466 of the companies act 1985.

410,-(1) The following provisions of this Chapter have effect

unless

for the purpose of securing the registration in Scotland of
registered.

charges created by companies.
(2)


Every charge created by a company, being a charge to
property or any part of it is conferred by the charge, void
against the liquidator and any creditor of the company unless
the prescribed particulars of the charge, together with a copy
(certified in the prescribed manner to be a correct copy) of the
instrument (if any) by which the charge is created or evidenced,
are delivered to or received by the registrar of companies for
registration in the manner required by this Chapter within 21
days after the date of the creation of the charge.
Companies Act 1985 c. 6 277
(3) Subsection (2) is without prejudice to any contract or PART XII
obligation for repayment of the money secured by the charge ; CHAPTER II
and when a charge becomes void under this section the money
secured by it immediately becomes payable.
(4) This section applies to the following charges-
(a) a charge on land wherever situated, or any interest in
such land (not including a charge for any rent, ground
annual or other periodical sum payable in respect of
the land, but including a charge created by a heritable
security within the meaning of section 9(8) of the Conveyancing
and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970), 1970 c. 35.
( B) a security over the uncalled share capital of the company,
© a security over incorporeal moveable property of any
of the following categories-
-W the book debts of the company,
(ii) calls made but not paid,
(iii) goodwill,
(iv) a patent or a licence under a patent,
(v) a trademark,
(vi) a copyright or a licence under a copyright,
(d) a security over a ship or aircraft or any share in a ship,
and
(e) a floating charge.
(5) In this Chapter " company " (except in section 424)
means an incorporated company registered in Scotland ; " registrar
of companies " means the registrar or other officer performing
under this Act the duty of

Copied from Kickback. Anyone know what it means?

---

Sounds like the creation or alteration of a charge (ie security) over the company's assets, although it's really not clear from that.

From memory, UBIG currently have security over everything.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

According to the paper, it is being done under section 410 and 466 of the companies act 1985.

410,-(1) The following provisions of this Chapter have effect

unless

for the purpose of securing the registration in Scotland of
registered.

charges created by companies.
(2)


Every charge created by a company, being a charge to
property or any part of it is conferred by the charge, void
against the liquidator and any creditor of the company unless
the prescribed particulars of the charge, together with a copy
(certified in the prescribed manner to be a correct copy) of the
instrument (if any) by which the charge is created or evidenced,
are delivered to or received by the registrar of companies for
registration in the manner required by this Chapter within 21
days after the date of the creation of the charge.
Companies Act 1985 c. 6 277
(3) Subsection (2) is without prejudice to any contract or PART XII
obligation for repayment of the money secured by the charge ; CHAPTER II
and when a charge becomes void under this section the money
secured by it immediately becomes payable.
(4) This section applies to the following charges-
(a) a charge on land wherever situated, or any interest in
such land (not including a charge for any rent, ground
annual or other periodical sum payable in respect of
the land, but including a charge created by a heritable
security within the meaning of section 9(8) of the Conveyancing
and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970), 1970 c. 35.
( B) a security over the uncalled share capital of the company,
© a security over incorporeal moveable property of any
of the following categories-
-W the book debts of the company,
(ii) calls made but not paid,
(iii) goodwill,
(iv) a patent or a licence under a patent,
(v) a trademark,
(vi) a copyright or a licence under a copyright,
(d) a security over a ship or aircraft or any share in a ship,
and
(e) a floating charge.
(5) In this Chapter " company " (except in section 424)
means an incorporated company registered in Scotland ; " registrar
of companies " means the registrar or other officer performing
under this Act the duty of

Copied from Kickback. Anyone know what it means?

---

Nope not got a Scoobie, it's all double Lith to me :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim44

They are discussing this overby:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/116814601/Hearts-466-06-12-12

Something about Hearts, Ubig and Ukio.
Maybe one of our legal/fiscal experts could make sense of it.

Some of the Yams are uneasy about it.


ps. Sorry link doesn't seem to work but the identical link works on KB

---

What are the jambos that are uneasy about it saying it means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

According to the paper, it is being done under section 410 and 466 of the companies act 1985.

410,-(1) The following provisions of this Chapter have effect

unless

for the purpose of securing the registration in Scotland of
registered.

charges created by companies.
(2)


(d) a security over a ship or aircraft or any share in a ship,and
(e) a floating charge.
Copied from Kickback. Anyone know what it means?

---

Does this include submarines ? :greengrin

They are genuinely celebrating about there players staff etc being paid... Saying we will be raging etc, how's this? Also seen one saying that 'Hibs going in debt an were going out' hahhaha got to laugh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingo70

What are the jambos that are uneasy about it saying it means?

---

They're saying - only half jokingly I suspect - is that it looks scary and someone on Hibs Net will sort it out for them. I suspect CG and CWG have a wee fan club growing over by.

Also - they are celebrating the (alleged) payment of wages, even thanking Mr Romanov. Beyond freakin deluded.

Have they actually been paid yet? Or are they all just going by what festers uglier twin said yesterday?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #FromTheCapital

Have they actually been paid yet? Or are they all just going by what festers uglier twin said yesterday?

---

If they hadn't it would have been leaked by now and we'd know about it IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #FromTheCapital

Have they actually been paid yet? Or are they all just going by what festers uglier twin said yesterday?

---

I can't see anything about actual payment and it seems they are celebrating McGlynn's and Fedotovas's 'confidence' that payment will be made. Again, I can't understand why they can't just say that the wages WILL be paid.