Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sauzee1966

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

---

Ukio aren't the parent company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

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

---

Okay, I'm lost - I thought UBIG were the owners of Hearts so they must hold shares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

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.

---

Not exactly, the audit opinion covers the foreseeable future, which is generally accepted to be a year from the date of signing the audit report but can extend further in some circumstances. That gives them a new problem for this year because it has been stated that UBIG would be reviewing the debt position at 30 June 2013, therefore they are unable to assess whether HoMFC is a going concern or not.

On the debate re last year's report, the gist of what they said was that HoMFC were dependent on the continuing support of UBIG for survival but they were unable to assess whether UBIG were capable of providing that support because they had not seen the information they considered necessary to arrive at a conclusion. These qualifications are intentionally bland but that gives all the necessary information and is pretty much all they could say without a risk of litigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Not exactly, the audit opinion covers the foreseeable future, which is generally accepted to be a year from the date of signing the audit report but can extend further in some circumstances. That gives them a new problem for this year because it has been stated y UBIG would be reviewing the debt position at 30 June 2013, therefore they are unable to assess whether HoMFC is a going concern or not.

On the debate re last year's report, the gist of what they said was that HoMFC were dependent on the continuing support of UBIG for survival but they were unable to assess whether UBIG were capable of providing that support because they had not seen the information they considered necessary to arrive at a conclusion. These qualifications are intentionally bland but that gives all the necessary information and is pretty much all they could say without a risk of litigation.

---

Which all begs the question - what exactly do auditors do, if the can only ever comment on the evidence offered to them? No crook is going to let an auditor have free rein on the books, and if the auditor can't enforce divulgence ... what a waste of time and money.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21534145

Maybe we should offer him Private Membership of Hibs.net, he would learn all he needs to know from CG, CWG and Sergey, as well as other posters.

George Foulkes - Gofer Keg Louse


Vladimir Romanov -Naval Door Rim Vim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21534145

Maybe we should offer him Private Membership of Hibs.net, he would learn all he needs to know from CG, CWG and Sergey, as well as other posters.

---

From the non-business EEN reporter:

Barry Anderson ‏@BarryAnderson_8
@jj_bruce My take: Tynecastle owned by #Hearts /UBIG. Floating charge (£6.8m) will switch from Ukio to Siauliu Bankas. Siauliu plans unclear

Cheers Barry.:aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

George Foulkes - Gofer Keg Louse


Vladimir Romanov -Naval Door Rim Vim

---

George Foulkes - Ego Flukes Ogre

Vladimir Romanov - Alarm Vivid Moron

And my favourite.........

Steve Cardownie - Now Eviscerated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

From the non-business EEN reporter:

Barry Anderson ‏@BarryAnderson_8
@jj_bruce My take: Tynecastle owned by #Hearts /UBIG. Floating charge (£6.8m) will switch from Ukio to Siauliu Bankas. Siauliu plans unclear

Cheers Barry.:aok:

---

That was me teasing him. The fact he says the floating charge WILL transfer is a bit of an assumption. They have to decide if it's a good or bad asset first. Remember though #allisbarry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clerriehibs

Which all begs the question - what exactly do auditors do, if the can only ever comment on the evidence offered to them? No crook is going to let an auditor have free rein on the books, and if the auditor can't enforce divulgence ... what a waste of time and money.

---

Johnston Carmichael were auditing the books of HoMFC plc and will have seen all of that company's records - if they didn't they would have said as much in their report or, if they considered the breach serious enough they would have resigned and reported the company to the appropriate authority. They were not appointed to comment in any way on the accounts of UBIG and had no direct right of access to that company's books. What they can do (and did) is request sufficient information from UBIG to satisfy themselves that a) future support would be forthcoming and b) UBIG were capable of providing that support. They got a) but didn't get b) and that's exactly what they said in their report. As a result they have expressed uncertainty as to whether the accounts show a true and fair view in this respect only - they are satisfied that every other aspect of the accounts is correct.

Seasoned users of these accounts (i.e. those who would make financial decisions based on their contents) would know that this qualification throws a huge amount of doubt over the company's ability to continue trading and would make their decisions accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Johnston Carmichael were auditing the books of HoMFC plc and will have seen all of that company's records -

Seasoned users of these accounts (i.e. those who would make financial decisions based on their contents) would know that this qualification throws a huge amount of doubt over the company's ability to continue trading and would make their decisions accordingly.

---

Do you consider Edinburgh Council as "seasoned users" and capable of understanding these qualifications and accepting the £ 100,000 plus of late payments an acceptable risk ?

Most people here know, nobody at Edinburgh Council Knows what day of the week it is, never mind the nuances of accounting terminology. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Do you consider Edinburgh Council as "seasoned users" and capable of understanding these qualifications and accepting the £ 100,000 plus of late payments an acceptable risk ?

Most people here know, nobody at Edinburgh Council Knows what day of the week it is, never mind the nuances of accounting terminology. :wink:

---

To be honest, if I thought they were relying on accounts that are almost 2 years out-of-date, no matter what the audit report said, for their credit-control procedures, I would be livid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

George Foulkes - Ego Flukes Ogre

Vladimir Romanov - Alarm Vivid Moron

And my favourite.........

Steve Cardownie - Now Eviscerated

---

Hearts - Rats Eh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Do you consider Edinburgh Council as "seasoned users" and capable of understanding these qualifications and accepting the £ 100,000 plus of late payments an acceptable risk ?

Most people here know, nobody at Edinburgh Council Knows what day of the week it is, never mind the nuances of accounting terminology. :wink:

---

The Cooncil are a bit of a special case - they can't actually refuse to provide their services to HoMFC. They should however be monitoring the arrears and taking action to recover them if complete default seems likely. In the case of the yams they should be pursuing the debts far more vigorously than they are IMo.

Uncle Fester

Quote:

---

"I don't really know anything about that. It's way, way above the level that I'm working at," McGlynn admitted.
"I don't have anything to do with any of the financial situation to be honest.

---

Wow, he surely should be aware of the financial situation ! Have they promoted a Groundsman or something ?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrinityHibs

I might regret this but the Gorgie "Opportunity Site" has limited value. Tesco are not buying sites and will not be buying sites for the forseeable future. Asda will not be interested due to the store at Chesser. (They just dont do canibilisation), Sainsburys have a Gorgie store which leaves Morrisons. They have/had a requirement for the west of Edinburgh and have looked at the BT building on Gorgie Road. But they need a site of around 6 acres with FRONTAGE... ie you can see the front of the shop. Not the PBS. They did the hidden one in Granton which is their worst trading shop in Scotland. They are also concentrating on the SE of England. Aldi would pay about £1M for a bit of the site but they might already be next to Mcdonalds (cannot remember) and Lidl are on Dalry Road. Its not a great place for another Waitrose which leaves the Co-op who mght just take an acre with frontage (Thats worth about £0.5M).

South Murayfield is not prime resi land and the housebulders are not buying dog sites to land bank unless they are owned by companies controlled by the banks who need to transfer ownership from one part of the bank to another. Thats what Cala and Miller are doing just now. Buying sites from HBOS basket cases funded by Lloyds/HBOS. Its got something to do with where the money comes from in HBOS and what account it ends up in.

---

You sound like you know what you are talking about and what you say worries me. There must be a scenario (after UBIG have also gone bust which seems inevitable) where the money Hearts owe UBIG and the £6.8M security UKIO hold are not worth the paper they are written on. The administrator (or whoever is picking up the pieces) may well decide to just sell whatever is left of the Romanov empire for whatever they can get. And, if the Tynecastle site is not going to attract a supermarket or housebuilder, then someone steps in and picks up Hearts (with Tynecastle) for a couple of million.

And it would be excruciating to see them escape what they are due in such a manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21534145

Maybe we should offer him Private Membership of Hibs.net, he would learn all he needs to know from CG, CWG and Sergey, as well as other posters.

---

"But people have got to realise there's still a sort of serious issue here."

:tee hee:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

George Foulkes - Twat!

Vladimir Romanov - Skint Knob! (could that be construed as being Jewish?)

And my favourite.........

Steve Cardownie - Another Twat!

---

As above!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

That was me teasing him. The fact he says the floating charge WILL transfer is a bit of an assumption. They have to decide if it's a good or bad asset first. Remember though #allisbarry

---

Just started following him after @radge tore him a new one last week. He is like one of these guys that has to say something even when the situation doesn't demand it. Whether he knows anything or not.

He is full of the broon stuff.

http://www.15min.lt/en/article/busin...ros-527-308747

"The bad part (of UKIO BANKAS) will go bankrupt, and the bankruptcy procedure involves finding all those assets that are located in several countries of the world. (These assets) are sold at the best prices and the money is returned to the Deposit Insurance Fund. In a sense, the fund is investing in salvaging the deposits, expecting to get some return by selling that bad part," he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilT

You sound like you know what you are talking about and what you say worries me. There must be a scenario (after UBIG have also gone bust which seems inevitable) where the money Hearts owe UBIG and the £6.8M security UKIO hold are not worth the paper they are written on. The administrator (or whoever is picking up the pieces) may well decide to just sell whatever is left of the Romanov empire for whatever they can get. And, if the Tynecastle site is not going to attract a supermarket or housebuilder, then someone steps in and picks up Hearts (with Tynecastle) for a couple of million.

And it would be excruciating to see them escape what they are due in such a manner.

---

When this has happened in the past (Leeds, Portsmouth), with the exception of the stitch up over Rangers, the club and the ground have been sold separately. The land occupied by Tynecastle is not of great value at the moment but remember what CALA were prepared to pay for it less than ten years ago. It is surely worth a few million as a long term investment for when the city economy fully recovers.

Sell the club to the supporters and the ground to a speculator who could probably rent in to the club in the meantime.

Nicest thing you have ever said about me though.

oh Pat, too kind, too kind:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

When this has happened in the past (Leeds, Portsmouth), with the exception of the stitch up over Rangers, the club and the ground have been sold separately. The land occupied by Tynecastle is not of great value at the moment but remember what CALA were prepared to pay for it less than ten years ago. It is surely worth a few million as a long term investment for when the city economy fully recovers.

Sell the club to the supporters and the ground to a speculator who could probably rent in to the club in the meantime.

---

Well at least Hearts have a buyer for the club in waiting:

http://www.foundationofhearts.org/st...ion-of-hearts/

Is it just me, or does this statement boil down to: "We've got nothing. Absolutely nothing. We're hoping the club somehow ends up in our hands but frankly we've no idea how this might happen. Apparently some guys abroad might have something to offer so no harm in meeting them, eh?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

http://www.15min.lt/en/article/busin...ros-527-308747

"The bad part (of UKIO BANKAS) will go bankrupt, and the bankruptcy procedure involves finding all those assets that are located in several countries of the world. (These assets) are sold at the best prices and the money is returned to the Deposit Insurance Fund. In a sense, the fund is investing in salvaging the deposits, expecting to get some return by selling that bad part," he said.

---

Is this not pretty big news or was this common knowledge to everyone?

Combining the cost of the club/land, working capital and the ability to fund a new stand a new owner will have to be good for £10-15 million to give them a fighting chance. There's not going to be many punters floating around with that kind of dough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingo70

Is this not pretty big news or was this common knowledge to everyone?

---

Lets but this into a bit of prepective. Who is going to buy tyncastle with a view of renting it back to hearts??? the main stand is falling down around them, how muhc would it cost to maintain? how long does the current H&S licence certifcate last? imo the only thing that will happen to tynie is someone (dont know who) whether it be houses, deveolpment compnay, tesco morrisons etc is to crush the place and build somthing new. which leads me to think what will happen is what WOULD have happend 10 year ago is sell the place - they get none of the money!! and rent murryfield. someone will buy the club for next to nothing, maybe even foh but they wont have any money to rub together. hearts will be playing youngsters, selling them and bring more throug for the forseeable....maybe not even staying in the SPL/new SPL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibee87

Lets but this into a bit of prepective. Who is going to buy tyncastle with a view of renting it back to hearts??? the main stand is falling down around them, how muhc would it cost to maintain? how long does the current H&S licence certifcate last? imo the only thing that will happen to tynie is someone (dont know who) whether it be houses, deveolpment compnay, tesco morrisons etc is to crush the place and build somthing new. which leads me to think what will happen is what WOULD have happend 10 year ago is sell the place - they get none of the money!! and rent murryfield. someone will buy the club for next to nothing, maybe even foh but they wont have any money to rub together. hearts will be playing youngsters, selling them and bring more throug for the forseeable....maybe not even staying in the SPL/new SPL.

---

there has to be some trading whilst insolvent punishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clerriehibs

there has to be some trading whilst insolvent punishment.

---

I dont know what that means but im no expert on these things so I trust your judgement :thumbsup:

The health and safety certification for the main old stand - can this info be found anywhere ?

I remember a few years ago this being said -

"The McLeod Street Stand is rapidly approaching a position where its Safety Certificate is under threat. Structural Engineers are concerned about the integrity due to corrosion of the internal steel beams.


The Stand itself does not conform with the Green Guide in terms of exit widths and evacuation times. The roof of the Stand, which is asbestos, has become very brittle and breaks and fragments on the rare occasions that balls land on the roof. Netting has been placed underneath this to protect spectators. The main seating deck is timber and therefore a higher risk for fire."

Taken from the below -

http://www.zinescene.pwp.blueyonder....MOBpurpose.htm

Can someone do some digging ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NJ Hibee

The health and safety certification for the main old stand - can this info be found anywhere ?

I remember a few years ago this being said -

"The McLeod Street Stand is rapidly approaching a position where its Safety Certificate is under threat. Structural Engineers are concerned about the integrity due to corrosion of the internal steel beams.


The Stand itself does not conform with the Green Guide in terms of exit widths and evacuation times. The roof of the Stand, which is asbestos, has become very brittle and breaks and fragments on the rare occasions that balls land on the roof. Netting has been placed underneath this to protect spectators. The main seating deck is timber and therefore a higher risk for fire."

Taken from the below -

http://www.zinescene.pwp.blueyonder....MOBpurpose.htm

Can someone do some digging ?

---

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/director...sports_grounds

Can someone do some walking :greengrin

So.... when do we find out if the new bank take on Hearts as a "good asset" or whether they're dumped by the wayside as a "bad asset"?


'Mon the Bad Assets!!