Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

Magpie, you're alive. How are you?

---

Just struggling along. You?

Haters is an anagram of Hearts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coco22

Haters is an anagram of Hearts.

---

So is Trashe

Sergey's post on the p m board that UBIG never submitted any accounts to the Lith. authorities since 2006 must bring into question Hearts accountants , Johnston Carmichael.

Since UBIG support was the sole reason for Hearts accounts being signed, I don't think the little footnote by J C to their Audit Report that they had'nt obtained " All " the information necessary.

If they knew there were no accounts being submitted by UBIG , I would have thought this should have been made clear in the Audit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim44

If proved to be true, would this criminal activity have a direct bearing on SPL rules on financial integrity and conduct of ownership etc. If it did, I suppose it could take yonks to establish by which time the Jambos will no doubt have performed a Houdiniesque escape from consequences and punishment.

---

That's my worry, Hearts escape. Debt written off if the lunatic goes to jail with operating costs lowered but no debts. I can just see it happening.

Personally, my guess over best case scenario is they drop to the 3rd. That's still pretty good though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Article in The Times today (sorry no link) says that Romanov is to face charges in Lithuania over his mismanagement of Ukio Bankas.
The article makes the valid point that in their last published accounts, back in 2011, Hearts turnover was £7m and their expenditure was £13m. Romanov "forgave" about £8m of debt so they could report a "profit". It remains to be seen if he pulled the same stunt for the 2012 accounts, which have not been released yet. The Times article includes the comment, "to trade in profit it [Hearts] either had to double its income or halve its costs". I would guess that if Hearts auditors have not already signed off their audit report, recent events in Lithuania will be causing them to think hard about how to word their report.

---

When i explained that their expenditure was £6m less than their income to my jambo mate he said they made a profit.in fairness to him he is one of the decent jambos(yes there are some) and i put it down to being in denial.I suppose if we were in their position we would try and put as rosy a picture as possible on things.He realises that if they come out of this still playing at the pbs but probably with a team full of youngsters he would look upon this as a result.You never know whats round the corner for that circus but as tom english said on sportsound last night the end game at the pbs is one of the few interesting things left of the season given top and bottom are sorted.
I think they will hoblle through the season and crunch time will come in the close season when no money is coming in and if(as in all probability)they have spent a good chunk of season ticket money to get through the season.One thing the maroon hordes have overlooked is that for a club still spending way over anybody outside celtic on wages how come they are 10th in the league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Sergey's post on the p m board that UBIG never submitted any accounts to the Lith. authorities since 2006 must bring into question Hearts accountants , Johnston Carmichael.

Since UBIG support was the sole reason for Hearts accounts being signed, I don't think the little footnote by J C to their Audit Report that they had'nt obtained " All " the information necessary.

If they knew there were no accounts being submitted by UBIG , I would have thought this should have been made clear in the Audit.

---

Have to stick up for JC here. It's not their job to comment on UBIG's compliance with the law. They are acting as HMFC's auditors and, in that respect, their report is understandable.

I am not sure what difference a reference to UBIG's non-compliance would have made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Article in The Times today (sorry no link) says that Romanov is to face charges in Lithuania over his mismanagement of Ukio Bankas.
The article makes the valid point that in their last published accounts, back in 2011, Hearts turnover was £7m and their expenditure was £13m. Romanov "forgave" about £8m of debt so they could report a "profit". It remains to be seen if he pulled the same stunt for the 2012 accounts, which have not been released yet. The Times article includes the comment, "to trade in profit it [Hearts] either had to double its income or halve its costs". I would guess that if Hearts auditors have not already signed off their audit report, recent events in Lithuania will be causing them to think hard about how to word their report.

---

One for CG or CWG... Does this increase the odds of UBIG going into administration, and could the Lithuania authorities reverse the 'forgiveness' and dump the debt back onto hertz debt?

Get your gums round this one. :-)

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article3694668.ece

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

Get your gums round this one. :-)

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/u...cle3694668.ece

---

And this one........


http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile...290717</i></b>

More slaverings of wishful thinking from Lord pishybreeks...........

The former chairman George Foulkes, however, believes the uncertainty surrounding the charge could be "a good thing".

"It's now another bank that are making the decisions and they will do it on the basis of logic and what's in the best interest of their shareholders. That means they will want to see Hearts as a going concern. The ideal solution would be to find a new owner or owners for the club that are able to lease the stadium and pay the bank some reasonable rental for it. That would seem to me to be the way forward."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Have to stick up for JC here. It's not their job to comment on UBIG's compliance with the law. They are acting as HMFC's auditors and, in that respect, their report is understandable.

I am not sure what difference a reference to UBIG's non-compliance would have made.

---

It explains why their audit has never been signed off until very late in the following financial year (usually early May). UBIG has evidently never provided them with any certainty that HMFC could make it through the following financial year, so they don't sign it off until it is apparent that they will. By early May each year the season tickets are on sale and it is self-evident that the company will survive until its year end. Whereas they couldn't say that with any certainty earlier in the financial year, when most clubs publish their accounts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Hackett

One for CG or CWG... Does this increase the odds of UBIG going into administration, and could the Lithuania authorities reverse the 'forgiveness' and dump the debt back onto hertz debt?

---

No to both. UBIG will most likely become insolvent when the Lithuanian government demands repayment of the bad loans made by Ukio. The debt for equity swaps were voted through by the shareholders of both companies and can't be unwound. It just means that UBIG has a lot of worthless shares in HMFC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

And this one........


http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/sport/football/floating-charge-of-68m-could-weigh-heavily-on-hearts.20290717

More slaverings of wishful thinking from Lord pishybreeks...........

The former chairman George Foulkes, however, believes the uncertainty surrounding the charge could be "a good thing".

"It's now another bank that are making the decisions and they will do it on the basis of logic and what's in the best interest of their shareholders. That means they will want to see Hearts as a going concern. The ideal solution would be to find a new owner or owners for the club that are able to lease the stadium and pay the bank some reasonable rental for it. That would seem to me to be the way forward."

---

So according to Foulkes, this other bank want to find Hearts new owners rather than disown them? Seems wishful thinking to me. Why would they care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

No to both.

---

Boooo! :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones28

So according to Foulkes, this other bank want to find Hearts new owners rather than disown them? Seems wishful thinking to me. Why would they care?

---

Leave the old twat alone, after all this is the man that helped usher the Dear Leader in and spent far too much time ass kissing until the penny finally dropped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

It just means that UBIG has a lot of worthless shares in HMFC.

---

Unlike those Jambos who bought "shares" last year. They don't own any, worthless or otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Have to stick up for JC here. It's not their job to comment on UBIG's compliance with the law. They are acting as HMFC's auditors and, in that respect, their report is understandable.

I am not sure what difference a reference to UBIG's non-compliance would have made.

---

Surely if they had said that they had not received 'any' financial information from UBIG rather than 'all' information then it would have put the yams accounts in a totally different light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Unlike those Jambos who bought "shares" last year. They don't own any, worthless or otherwise.

---

The shares are not worth the paper there not yet written on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Have to stick up for JC here. It's not their job to comment on UBIG's compliance with the law. They are acting as HMFC's auditors and, in that respect, their report is understandable.

I am not sure what difference a reference to UBIG's non-compliance would have made.

---

The point is that Hearts as a stand-alone company were effectively insolvent and had been for some years. The auditors signed off the accounts on the basis that Hearts were backed by UBIG and implicitly that UBIG were good for the money. If not then presumably Hearts were trading while insolvent. They even signed off the last set of accounts after Romanov had publicly declared that Hearts were 'on there own'. A mealy mouthed correction by UBIG was put out at the last minute to enable the accounts to be signed off.

I understand that no accounts for UBIG have been seen for years so how could the auditors form the opinion that they would (or rather could) continue to back Hearts financially?

They clearly followed the instructions of their paymasters rather than attempting to protect the interests of creditors and others who would act on the information in the accounts.

Your defence of JC sounds rather like the 'accountants old pals act' in operation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

I understand that no accounts for UBIG have been seen for years so how could the auditors form the opinion that they would (or rather could) continue to back Hearts financially?

They clearly followed the instructions of their paymasters rather than attempting to protect the interests of creditors and others who would act on the information in the accounts.

---

The audit opinion only provides assurance for the following accounting year, not beyond. Hearts' last set of accounts was to 30 June 2011 and it was signed off in May 2012. All the opinion is effectively saying is that they are assured that UBIG would continue to support HMFC until 30 June 2012.

The very fact that the (heavily qualified) audit opinion is signed and accounts are filed so late should be a warning sign to suppliers and would be buyers. Indeed, the FOH statement issued the other day complained about the lack of assistance from the HMFC board on this point, that the accounts are now 20 months behind.

At the end of the day we all want to know the same thing - are hearts thucked or will they come out of this squeaky clean??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

The point is that Hearts as a stand-alone company were effectively insolvent and had been for some years. The auditors signed off the accounts on the basis that Hearts were backed by UBIG and implicitly that UBIG were good for the money. If not then presumably Hearts were trading while insolvent. They even signed off the last set of accounts after Romanov had publicly declared that Hearts were 'on there own'. A mealy mouthed correction by UBIG was put out at the last minute to enable the accounts to be signed off.

I understand that no accounts for UBIG have been seen for years so how could the auditors form the opinion that they would (or rather could) continue to back Hearts financially?

They clearly followed the instructions of their paymasters rather than attempting to protect the interests of creditors and others who would act on the information in the accounts.

Your defence of JC sounds rather like the 'accountants old pals act' in operation.

---

They didn't.

Their AR said "information that would have enabled us to conclude as to whether UBIG is able to meet its commitment to provide sufficient funding to enable the company to meet its liabilities as they fall due for the foreseeable future was not made available to us. Had this information been made available to us, we might have formed a different opinion on the financial statements."

There is no statement that UBIG were "good for the money". For me, and for anybody who might have been making decisions based on those accounts, that is not expressed or implied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coco22

Haters is an anagram of Hearts.

---

So is Sheart.

This is very close to shart which is, ironically, what many jambos are also close to.

Even the most obsequious, forelock tugging carsdigan wearers seem to have woken to the overwhelming aroma of coffee over the last week or so. That the forelock tugger-in-chief Lord Foulkes sees developments as an opportunity rather than a threat tells you all you need to know about that slavering old drunken walrus.

Just out of interest to the guys with an understanding of the financial aspects, on UKIO is this good old fashioned casino banking or somewhat murkier and dare I say bordering on pre-meditated criminality.

I remember seeing something once on Oligarchs and there fascination with political office, on which an informed analyst said that the reason was that it is very hard to prosecute an elected official.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Unlike those Jambos who bought "shares" last year. They don't own any, worthless or otherwise.

---

What? Not even a bit of paper? Surely not, they are a savvy bunch and they are owned by a mega rich compliant bank, no way will they fail to get valid registered certificates or at least their cash back.

Cash Fret is an anagram of Hearts FC. How appropriate. :agree:

If George Foulkes keeps banging on about how Hearts are self sustaining and have no financial problems, it's just going to result in the small businesses around Edinburgh and the Lothians who are repeatedly told by Hearts that "the cheque's in the post" losing patience and calling on Blacklocks' services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish

Cash Fret is an anagram of Hearts FC. How appropriate. :agree:

---

:agree:

There are a couple of decent anagrams of Heart of Midlothian FC:

Chairman Offed To Lith

Lith Mafia Fetch Donor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey

If George Foulkes keeps banging on about how Hearts are self sustaining and have no financial problems, it's just going to result in the small businesses around Edinburgh and the Lothians who are repeatedly told by Hearts that "the cheque's in the post" losing patience and calling on Blacklocks' services.

---

:agree:


Auld pishy breeks should be more concerned that he himself is self staining....

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/9600/pishy2.jpg

If the parent company is in Admin.. then surely the same rules should apply to Hearts....or are the SFA rules different?

Surely if the parent company is in administration then so is the club....ie portsmouth...livi...dundee?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjhibby

When i explained that their expenditure was £6m less than their income to my jambo mate he said they made a profit.in fairness to him he is one of the decent jambos(yes there are some) and i put it down to being in denial.I suppose if we were in their position we would try and put as rosy a picture as possible on things.He realises that if they come out of this still playing at the pbs but probably with a team full of youngsters he would look upon this as a result.You never know whats round the corner for that circus but as tom english said on sportsound last night the end game at the pbs is one of the few interesting things left of the season given top and bottom are sorted.
I think they will hoblle through the season and crunch time will come in the close season when no money is coming in and if(as in all probability)they have spent a good chunk of season ticket money to get through the season.One thing the maroon hordes have overlooked is that for a club still spending way over anybody outside celtic on wages how come they are 10th in the league.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey

If George Foulkes keeps banging on about how Hearts are self sustaining and have no financial problems, it's just going to result in the small businesses around Edinburgh and the Lothians who are repeatedly told by Hearts that "the cheque's in the post" losing patience and calling on Blacklocks' services.

---

How many time have you posted this now?! Maybe one of these days someone will reads it and do as you want them to!