Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee

Totally agree with this. Quite wrong in this day and age to be saying the huns. Since this summer the correct expression is [I:]the the huns[/I]. :agree:

---

very good:not worth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbagepatchhib

I find it sad that we are still using words like "the huns" we are hibs eh and we are better than that.

---

I find it sad that was your 1st post "eh":wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbagepatchhib

I find it sad that we are still using words like "the huns" we are hibs eh and we are better than that.

---

It's refreshing to see that there are still politically correct and responsible members on this board















































:fibber:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbagepatchhib

i find it sad that we are still using words like "the huns" we are hibs eh and we are better than that.

---

lthf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

lthf

---

LTTHF

Shamelessly copied!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VickMackie

LTTHF

Shamelessly copied!

---

:tee hee:

Nah, I agree with the poster! Huns is a nothing and we are better than that! I would call it straight down the middle: cheating, corrupt, dangerous bigoted, ****bags who are no more! THANKFULLY! :cb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrSmith

Nah, I agree with the poster! Huns is a nothing and we are better than that! I would call it straight down the middle: cheating, corrupt, dangerous bigoted, ****bags who are no more! THANKFULLY! :cb

---

Can I just add that they are / and were Barstewards as well please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbagepatchhib

I find it sad that we are still using words like "the huns" we are hibs eh and we are better than that.

---

not sad at all. new huns, old huns? at the end of the day theyre still huns. what would you call them out of interest? odious creatures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamig

not sad at all. new huns, old huns? at the end of the day theyre still huns. what would you call them out of interest? odious creatures.

---

Interesting question, The now defunct Glasgow Rangers fans used to sing songs where they called themselves Teddy Bears and Billy Boys. So maybe these inoffensive wee names would be acceptable to the OP, assuming the now defunct club hasn't copyrighted them:wink:

The the huns have their own thread, can we not stick to the tramps on this one? :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

The the huns have their own thread, can we not stick to the tramps on this one? :greengrin

---

cabbagepatchhib

:grr: he started it :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

The the huns have their own thread, can we not stick to the tramps on this one? :greengrin

---

Right, to get back to matters Yam, was it ever discussed/ dismissed/ otherwise discounted in the past hundred odd pages if the Hearts admission to cooking their tax books by claiming players were on loan from Lithland could have lead to any of their players being improperly registered as per the Dead Rangers SPL inquiry.

In other words was every pound ,euro or Litas paid to the players recorded on the playing contracts ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Right, to get back to matters Yam, was it ever discussed/ dismissed/ otherwise discounted in the past hundred odd pages if the Hearts admission to cooking their tax books by claiming players were on loan from Lithland could have lead to any of their players being improperly registered as per the Dead Rangers SPL inquiry.

In other words was every pound ,euro or Litas paid to the players recorded on the playing contracts ?

---

It has been discussed a few times.

Without inside knowledge..... cough...a deep throated one at that.... cough.... :greengrin all we ever had was conjecture. Indeed, the only public discussion was from HMFC, who mentioned the loaned players. They didn't go into much detail, so the enquiry could have been about any number of issues.

However, if it is about the loaned players, I can't see that the double-contract issues would apply. The players' contracts wouldn't be lodged with the SFA, but in the country of the loaning club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Right, to get back to matters Yam, was it ever discussed/ dismissed/ otherwise discounted in the past hundred odd pages if the Hearts admission to cooking their tax books by claiming players were on loan from Lithland could have lead to any of their players being improperly registered as per the Dead Rangers SPL inquiry.

---

I'm sure that the SPL Board have thoroughly investigated these matters, in conjunction with the Scottish Football governing body. everything must be above board:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

In other words was every pound ,euro or Litas paid to the players recorded on the playing contracts ?

---

hmrc would not let hmfc off with a penny. that's like saying they would allow some kind of part payment system eg; pay some now, pay some in the future.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monktonharp

hmrc would not let hmfc off with a penny. that's like saying they would allow some kind of part payment system eg; pay some now, pay some in the future.:rolleyes:

---

As someone who pays Taxes is it not right that HMRC get the money ? even if it takes 3 years ? rather than say "gies £1.75 Mil noo" to which HMFC would say ? aye you guessed it "em naw we're bust KEN pick the scraps out whats left" :agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocopops1875

As someone who pays Taxes is it not right that HMRC get the money ? even if it takes 3 years ? rather than say "gies £1.75 Mil noo" to which HMFC would say ? aye you guessed it "em naw we're bust KEN pick the scraps out whats left" :agree:

---

As a taxpayer, I agree.

However, as a Hibby, I think it would have been worth the Revenue taking a wee financial hit and putting Yamco in the ground...

...and I've been a Hibby longer than I've been a taxpayer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20851674

this is about Blackburn.... but could easily be a future Yam story...... IF they survive of course :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Unless their auditors, Johnston Carmichael, start to play hard-ball and tell them their accounts will not be signed off unless they show a clear business plan for elimination of their structural deficit.

Let the Accountants select the squad and pick the team !:greengrin

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

TBH, the auditor's report has been pretty horrible for years now, and I don't see that changing. Cav will be along to quote the exact wording, but it has been along the lines of "we cannot ascertain whether the company is a going concern, as we were unable to obtain assurances to that effect from the parent company". Now that Romanov has stated that he won't support them financially, the AR will be even more critical. I can't see that HMFC can do anything about it.

---

A bit late on this one due to being in the Lincolnshire mountains for Christmas.

It's not really a case of the auditors playing hard-ball - HoMFC are their clients and they will do all they can to minimise the effects of their audit report. They do have to cover their own erses though, if they give an audit report that doesn't stand up to scrutiny they stand to be sued for losses, which means....

Annual accounts are always prepared on a going concern basis and auditors take great care to ensure that the client is a going concern - i.e. capable of continuing in business for the foreseeable future. If the client is not a going concern, in theory the auditor would give a disagreement audit opinion - the accounts do not show a true and fair view - together with a summary of what the accounts should show. In practice they would simply not give an audit opinion because a) that summary would effectively mean carrying out a dummy liquidation; b) they would be incurring costs that the client would not be able to pay and c) there are numerous legal ramification attached to giving such an opinion.

The auditor's problem here is that HoMFC have publicly stated that they cannot continue in business unless they raise a significant amount of cash from an as yet unidentified source, therefore they are not a going concern. IMO as things stand HoMFC do not have a hope in hell of getting any sort of audit report signed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

A bit late on this one due to being in the Lincolnshire mountains for Christmas.

It's not really a case of the auditors playing hard-ball - HoMFC are their clients and they will do all they can to minimise the effects of their audit report. They do have to cover their own erses though, if they give an audit report that doesn't stand up to scrutiny they stand to be sued for losses, which means....

Annual accounts are always prepared on a going concern basis and auditors take great care to ensure that the client is a going concern - i.e. capable of continuing in business for the foreseeable future. If the client is not a going concern, in theory the auditor would give a disagreement audit opinion - the accounts do not show a true and fair view - together with a summary of what the accounts should show. In practice they would simply not give an audit opinion because a) that summary would effectively mean carrying out a dummy liquidation; b) they would be incurring costs that the client would not be able to pay and c) there are numerous legal ramification attached to giving such an opinion.

The auditor's problem here is that HoMFC have publicly stated that they cannot continue in business unless they raise a significant amount of cash from an as yet unidentified source, therefore they are not a going concern. IMO as things stand HoMFC do not have a hope in hell of getting any sort of audit report signed.

---

So, qwestion next? what happens if they can not get their accounts audited?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EuanH78

So, qwestion next? what happens if they can not get their accounts audited?

---

1. They won't (or shouldn't) get an SFA licence for next season. The same scenario happened at the start of this season (ie the accounts had not been lodged) , but I am guessing that the SFA took a lenient stance as it was the first year of the new regime.

2. Companies House will fine them for non-submission, and will continue to do so. There will then come a point where CH will threaten to strike them off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

1. They won't (or shouldn't) get an SFA licence for next season. The same scenario happened at the start of this season (ie the accounts had not been lodged) , but I am guessing that the SFA took a lenient stance as it was the first year of the new regime.

2. Companies House will fine them for non-submission, and will continue to do so. There will then come a point where CH will threaten to strike them off.

---

this is a new development and sounds like it's the end for them @

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Famous5forever

this is a new development and sounds like it's the end for them @

---

It's not really a new development. They have sailed close to the wind with the SFA and CH before, and muddled through. It will be more difficult than before, for sure, but it's still not as serious as the real problem, which is lack of cash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

A bit late on this one due to being in the Lincolnshire mountains for Christmas.

It's not really a case of the auditors playing hard-ball - HoMFC are their clients and they will do all they can to minimise the effects of their audit report. They do have to cover their own erses though, if they give an audit report that doesn't stand up to scrutiny they stand to be sued for losses, which means....

Annual accounts are always prepared on a going concern basis and auditors take great care to ensure that the client is a going concern - i.e. capable of continuing in business for the foreseeable future. If the client is not a going concern, in theory the auditor would give a disagreement audit opinion - the accounts do not show a true and fair view - together with a summary of what the accounts should show. In practice they would simply not give an audit opinion because a) that summary would effectively mean carrying out a dummy liquidation; b) they would be incurring costs that the client would not be able to pay and c) there are numerous legal ramification attached to giving such an opinion.

The auditor's problem here is that HoMFC have publicly stated that they cannot continue in business unless they raise a significant amount of cash from an as yet unidentified source, therefore they are not a going concern. IMO as things stand HoMFC do not have a hope in hell of getting any sort of audit report signed.

---

The 2011 accounts were signed by the auditors in April of this year months after it was announced UBIG/Vlad was no longer going to fund the Club :confused:.My post was related to a discussion of what kind of squad the Yams are likely to have post January window.
The reference to Accountants picking the squad was to suggest an inferno sized fire sale with anybody and everything that costs money is binned if possible, and Fester and football necessities should be disregarded.
Not saying that our resident accounting people on here would not have made a better job of squad selection than some of the managers who have departed E R. in the not too distant past. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

The 2011 accounts were signed by the auditors in April of this year months after it was announced UBIG/Vlad was no longer going to fund the Club :confused:.My post was related to a discussion of what kind of squad the Yams are likely to have post January window.
The reference to Accountants picking the squad was to suggest an inferno sized fire sale with anybody and everything that costs money is binned if possible, and Fester and football necessities should be disregarded.
Not saying that our resident accounting people on here would not have made a better job of squad selection than some of the managers who have departed E R. in the not too distant past. :greengrin

---

That's not in the Accountants/Auditors power, if that's what you mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That's not in the Accountants/Auditors power, if that's what you mean.

---

Not instructing individual sales, but suggesting to Yam management that if the Club's ongoing costs were reigned in enormously, it would be easier for the Auditors to painted a slightly less bleak picture of the Yams prospects.


They have started by submitting their Annual Return. Three and a half months late but never mind.


http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Not instructing individual sales, but suggesting to Yam management that if the Club's ongoing costs were reigned in enormously, it would be easier for the Auditors to painted a slightly less bleak picture of the Yams prospects.


They have started by submitting their Annual Return. Three and a half months late but never mind.


http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails

---

Even if every player was sold, and replaced with amateurs, the auditors could do little better than to say "you're not a going concern."

ps keep an eye on the Annual Return. I see it's not available to view online yet, but there could be some gossip in there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Even if every player was sold, and replaced with amateurs, the auditors could do little better than to say "you're not a going concern."

ps keep an eye on the Annual Return. I see it's not available to view online yet, but there could be some gossip in there.

---

Fine work Crops keep us up to date on any further news in any case uncle fester wont be bringing any new players in cause oh the embargo and lack of cash.

Sorry for not keeping fully up to date/totally forgetting the answers but:

What was the signing ban made indefinite for? I was under the impression they'd paid their players, is it just there until they are proven to be 'living within their means'?

What steps do they have to take to get the ban lifted and is this possible/likely for them to do during the January?

Cheers :-)

Vlad denies players are going to leave ................... his Kaunus basketball Team !

http://www.sportando.net/eng/europe/...-kaukenas.html


" Perverts are spreading gossip " you have got to love Vlad, what will we do when he is gone ?