Romanov to stand trial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibs4185

The yams weren’t happy to play Russian roulette with their club, it was their only option or they would’ve been at murrayfield with tynecastle being houses.

Romanov tried to buy a couple of clubs before the desperados but he was tuned down. I’m sure Dunfermline were approached by Romanov. The only club who were desperate enough were hearts.

---

Dundee being the other club

Every Jambo I know turns a blind eye to the debt, corruption and cheating that took place during the Robinson/Romanov era.

What must never be forgotten is that they went nearly 30 years without a trophy then 3 appeared in 15 years. Robinson bought Hearts from Mercer for £3,000,000.00 Their debt huge debt started to accumulate before they won the Scottish Cup in 1998. George Foulkes then went begging to all dubious oligarchs to flog Hearts. The Hearts debt garnered by Robinson amounted to £18,000,000 when Romanov took over. Hearts debt reached £30,000,000.00 in 2008 when Romanov conducted a share for capital exercise which ‘hid’ £10,000,000.00 he did this again at a later date. Who were Hearts bankers at this time.....Romanov’s (Ukio Bankas).....no responsible or legitimate bank would ever have approved this. So Hearts ‘real’ debt may have amounted to £50,000,000.

My initial point is that they won 3 Scottish Cups during this period of financial malpractice. Would they have won these 3 cups without this debt......NO CHANCE....NEVER!

This is a club that cheated to win their last 3 major trophies. This together with the poppy issue and the huge debt write off make Hearts tarnished forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875

Dundee being the other club

---

Sure he spoke to Dundee United as well but talks got no-where.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Sure he spoke to Dundee United as well but talks got no-where.

---

i remember being quite surprised Dundee knocked back a crook...they do like the odd crook in their boardroom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bostonhibby

I don't recall many hearts fans criticising him. The reverse. He was welcomed like a Messiah.

Plenty chat about their new found targets and about us no longer being rivals etc..I could go on[emoji6]

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

---

You are correct I meant that they had no option to support him and celebrate it as a victory as if it wasn’t for him they’d be ****ed. Romanov was their last option and whilst every other club in Scotland could see he was a crook at best, the yams had to hail him as a saviour and visionary!

It is amazing how they celebrate Romanov only adding a couple of million to their debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibs4185

You are correct I meant that they had no option to support him and celebrate it as a victory as if it wasn’t for him they’d be ****ed. Romanov was their last option and whilst every other club in Scotland could see he was a crook at best, the yams had to hail him as a saviour and visionary!

It is amazing how they celebrate Romanov only adding a couple of million to their debt.

---

[emoji106]

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875

i remember being quite surprised Dundee knocked back a crook...they do like the odd crook in their boardroom

---

Shows how dodgy he was if they knocked him back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bostonhibby

I don't recall many hearts fans criticising him. The reverse. He was welcomed like a Messiah.

Plenty chat about their new found targets and about us no longer being rivals etc..I could go on[emoji6]

---

There were a few dissenting voices on JKB in the very early days. The poster Roald Jensen identified him straightaway as dodgy
and unwelcome. I think he and other doubters just got worn out with getting shouted down every time they queried the submariner's motives, and eventually stopped posting in that vein (or at all).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibees1973

Every Jambo I know turns a blind eye to the debt, corruption and cheating that took place during the Robinson/Romanov era.

What must never be forgotten is that they went nearly 30 years without a trophy then 3 appeared in 15 years. Robinson bought Hearts from Mercer for £3,000,000.00 Their debt huge debt started to accumulate before they won the Scottish Cup in 1998. George Foulkes then went begging to all dubious oligarchs to flog Hearts. The Hearts debt garnered by Robinson amounted to £18,000,000 when Romanov took over. Hearts debt reached £30,000,000.00 in 2008 when Romanov conducted a share for capital exercise which ‘hid’ £10,000,000.00 he did this again at a later date. Who were Hearts bankers at this time.....Romanov’s (Ukio Bankas).....no responsible or legitimate bank would ever have approved this. So Hearts ‘real’ debt may have amounted to £50,000,000.

My initial point is that they won 3 Scottish Cups during this period of financial malpractice. Would they have won these 3 cups without this debt......NO CHANCE....NEVER!

This is a club that cheated to win their last 3 major trophies. This together with the poppy issue and the huge debt write off make Hearts tarnished forever.

---

:top marks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibees1973

Every Jambo I know turns a blind eye to the debt, corruption and cheating that took place during the Robinson/Romanov era.

What must never be forgotten is that they went nearly 30 years without a trophy then 3 appeared in 15 years. Robinson bought Hearts from Mercer for £3,000,000.00 Their debt huge debt started to accumulate before they won the Scottish Cup in 1998. George Foulkes then went begging to all dubious oligarchs to flog Hearts. The Hearts debt garnered by Robinson amounted to £18,000,000 when Romanov took over. Hearts debt reached £30,000,000.00 in 2008 when Romanov conducted a share for capital exercise which ‘hid’ £10,000,000.00 he did this again at a later date. Who were Hearts bankers at this time.....Romanov’s (Ukio Bankas).....no responsible or legitimate bank would ever have approved this. So Hearts ‘real’ debt may have amounted to £50,000,000.

My initial point is that they won 3 Scottish Cups during this period of financial malpractice. Would they have won these 3 cups without this debt......NO CHANCE....NEVER!

This is a club that cheated to win their last 3 major trophies. This together with the poppy issue and the huge debt write off make Hearts tarnished forever.

---

Converting debt to equity is a fairly common practice among companies. Indeed, banks often encourage it as it shows commitment on the part of the owners or lenders to the future of the company.

Rangers, for example, have just done exactly that.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Converting debt to equity is a fairly common practice among companies. Indeed, banks often encourage it as it shows commitment on the part of the owners or lenders to the future of the company.

Rangers, for example, have just done exactly that.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

---

Banks might encourage it when it was the directors own cash that provided the loans forming the debt.

In the Heart's case it was the Ukio Bankas that converted their customer's savings into worthless Yam shares.

The other thing that sticks in my craw is the complete failure of the MSM to even try to investigate what was going on at Tynecastle when it was obvious to just about everyone else that something was just not right.

I mean, numerous winding-up petitions to the Court of Session by HMRC (settled at the door of the Court), players and staff wages going unpaid, countless cases brought in Edinburgh Sheriff Court by unpaid creditors (usually SMEs who needed the money), the Heriot-Watt rent unpaid, Council Tax unpaid for months on end, Police bill unpaid, not to mention (plausible) allegations of embezzlement from Bosnian steel workers' pension fund.

All pointing to something being very seriously wrong and whiffing to high heaven. And yet, complete silence from the MSM. Probably didn't want to be barred from a free booze-up in hospitality after games at Tynie.

The other thing that sticks in my craw is the complete failure of the MSM to even try to investigate what was going on at Tynecastle when it was obvious to just about everyone else that something was just not right.

I mean, numerous winding-up petitions to the Court of Session by HMRC (settled at the door of the Court), players and staff wages going unpaid, countless cases brought in Edinburgh Sheriff Court by unpaid creditors (usually SMEs who needed the money), the Heriot-Watt rent unpaid, Council Tax unpaid for months on end, Police bill unpaid, not to mentions (plausible) allegations of embezzlement from Bosnian steel workers' pension fund.

All pointing to something being very seriously wrong and whiffing to high heaven. And yet, complete silence from the MSM. Probably didn't want to be barred from a free booze-up in hospitality after games at Tynie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibees1973

Every Jambo I know turns a blind eye to the debt, corruption and cheating that took place during the Robinson/Romanov era.

What must never be forgotten is that they went nearly 30 years without a trophy then 3 appeared in 15 years. Robinson bought Hearts from Mercer for £3,000,000.00 Their debt huge debt started to accumulate before they won the Scottish Cup in 1998. George Foulkes then went begging to all dubious oligarchs to flog Hearts. The Hearts debt garnered by Robinson amounted to £18,000,000 when Romanov took over. Hearts debt reached £30,000,000.00 in 2008 when Romanov conducted a share for capital exercise which ‘hid’ £10,000,000.00 he did this again at a later date. Who were Hearts bankers at this time.....Romanov’s (Ukio Bankas).....no responsible or legitimate bank would ever have approved this. So Hearts ‘real’ debt may have amounted to £50,000,000.

My initial point is that they won 3 Scottish Cups during this period of financial malpractice. Would they have won these 3 cups without this debt......NO CHANCE....NEVER!

This is a club that cheated to win their last 3 major trophies. This together with the poppy issue and the huge debt write off make Hearts tarnished forever.

---

We know what the real debt was, £43,684,551 per the BDO Administration figures plus the £40,700,00 written off by the parent, so £84,384,551.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Converting debt to equity is a fairly common practice among companies. Indeed, banks often encourage it as it shows commitment on the part of the owners or lenders to the future of the company.

Rangers, for example, have just done exactly that.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

---

Debt forgiveness, write offs of intergroup debt and swaps of worthless equity for irrecoverable debt may be common mechanisms for bolstering corporate balance sheets, but the £7.9m adjustment in the year to 31 July 2010 and the £18.8m in the 11 month period to 30 June 2011 are plainly window dressing. They both bring the bottom line to a break even position after the ruinous figures for 2009 where they made an £8.6m net loss on an £8.3m turnover attracted too much attention. The 2009 figures include £10.5m on wages, 127% of turnover.

Similarly, the 2008 write off of £12m masked a £13.4m loss on a £9.2m turnover, with £11.3m spent on wages in that year, 123% of turnover having posted a whopping £12.4m loss in July 2007.

One can speculate as to the reasons for the window dressing, but I'm not sure the "model" has anything to do with football at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FitzAlan

Debt forgiveness, write offs of intergroup debt and swaps of worthless equity for irrecoverable debt may be common mechanisms for bolstering corporate balance sheets, but the £7.9m adjustment in the year to 31 July 2010 and the £18.8m in the 11 month period to 30 June 2011 are plainly window dressing. They both bring the bottom line to a break even position after the ruinous figures for 2009 where they made an £8.6m net loss on an £8.3m turnover attracted too much attention. The 2009 figures include £10.5m on wages, 127% of turnover.

Similarly, the 2008 write off of £12m masked a £13.4m loss on a £9.2m turnover, with £11.3m spent on wages in that year, 123% of turnover having posted a whopping £12.4m loss in July 2007.

One can speculate as to the reasons for the window dressing, but I'm not sure the "model" has anything to do with football at all.

---

Bolstering the Balance Sheet was exactly why they did it, to settle the nerves of non-group creditors and, arguably, to ward off any UEFA action. At the time, without hindsight, it seemed a sensible thing to do. Without that, I'd suggest that admin would have arrived much sooner.

With the benefit of hindsight, of course, it made little difference to the fate of non-group creditors. Indeed, for many, it probably increased their loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bostonhibby

It's not naive. I think there's a deliberate desire to steer away from the vlad type gangster who was welcomed at the pre administration wongadome.

They are happy to play Russian roulette with their club and it's reputation.

I'm just staggered at how little success that huge sum of money in Scottish football terms actually bought them. Definitely not worth the stigma they're left with.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

---

Are they left with a stigma?

Amongst Hibs fans, maybe.

The rest of the footballing world seems to want to celebrate their Phoenix like rise from the ashes, congratulating their fans for their great loyalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

Are they left with a stigma?

Amongst Hibs fans, maybe.

The rest of the footballing world seems to want to celebrate their Phoenix like rise from the ashes, congratulating their fans for their great loyalty.

---

:agree:

They won two Scottish Cups, qualified for the CL and regularly beat us in the league. Their punishment was a brief relegation and a complete wipe of their debt - within three years of administration they qualified for Europe again and haven't been out of the top six since they were promoted.

Was their punishment lenient to the extreme and should they have been taken to task much earlier for their consistent financial doping and generally making a mockery of fairness and transparency in Scottish football? Absolutely. Do they care? Absolutely not. Would we take that if it meant exactly the same reward and "punishment"? Absolutely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

Are they left with a stigma?

Amongst Hibs fans, maybe.

The rest of the footballing world seems to want to celebrate their Phoenix like rise from the ashes, congratulating their fans for their great loyalty.

---

It's an interesting point, I suppose its how anyone looking in might see the bumping of the number and type of creditors they did bump, especially in light of their carefree spending and claims before it went pop and their shameless hijacking of particular creditors like the Battalion trust and the Poppy fund subsequently. The fact it did happen leaves a smell behind that they are pretty keen to avoid.

I have mates who support St.Mirren, Celtc, Aberdeen and Raith Rovers, they are keen to remind them.

For me personally the scale of their last phoenix like rise under Romanov and the subsequent splat was spectacular both in terms of the sheer amount their owner misappropriated and blew on them and of course the victims themselves that there is a stigma, there's no doubt they are positioning themselves to pretend none of this happened, that will work if everyone else wants to go along with it.

I agree about the way they seem to be spinning the story, particularly with compliant media but the facts are the facts and it doesn't take too much effort to remind them as well as spread the message now and again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diclonius

:agree:

They won two Scottish Cups, qualified for the CL and regularly beat us in the league. Their punishment was a brief relegation and a complete wipe of their debt - within three years of administration they qualified for Europe again and haven't been out of the top six since they were promoted.

Was their punishment lenient to the extreme and should they have been taken to task much earlier for their consistent financial doping and generally making a mockery of fairness and transparency in Scottish football? Absolutely. Do they care? Absolutely not. Would we take that if it meant exactly the same reward and "punishment"? Absolutely.

---

They did not qualify for the Champions League, only the qualifiers. They got a telling off for playing the Champions League music by UEFA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Converting debt to equity is a fairly common practice among companies. Indeed, banks often encourage it as it shows commitment on the part of the owners or lenders to the future of the company.

Rangers, for example, have just done exactly that.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

---

Usually done when companies are in trouble and can't service debt or pay it back. Their equity turned out to be worthless. Debt to equity is normally a red warning light a company is in trouble. In any bankruptcy equity is ranked below debt in terms of paying creditors off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Bolstering the Balance Sheet was exactly why they did it, to settle the nerves of non-group creditors and, arguably, to ward off any UEFA action. At the time, without hindsight, it seemed a sensible thing to do. Without that, I'd suggest that admin would have arrived much sooner.

With the benefit of hindsight, of course, it made little difference to the fate of non-group creditors. Indeed, for many, it probably increased their loss.

---

Up to a point, CWG, but I'm not sure I would characterise a balance sheet (2011) which still has net current liabilities of £28.5m, a net deficiency of shareholders funds of £13.92m and negative P&L reserves of £45.83m, even after £18.8m of debt having been restructured, as "bolstered". Not sufficiently, in any case.

Their accounts disclose net current liabilities in each and every year, £24.61m on average and varying between £13.5m and £42.41m, during the Romanov era (2005-2013). Any end user of the accounts viewing them with anything other than deep concern and scepticism, well, caveat lector. They were technically insolvent throughout, it was the eventual drying up of cash inflow from the equally insolvent parent that prompted administration. They were running on fumes for the last two years.

My immediate impression at the time (2011 specifically) was that it was window dressing so that the media, who evidently have difficulty understanding accounts, would say, "look, Hearts made a profit". (£511k. Their actual net loss that year was £8.3m on a turnover of £6.9m)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FitzAlan

Up to a point, CWG, but I'm not sure I would characterise a balance sheet (2011) which still has net current liabilities of £28.5m, a net deficiency of shareholders funds of £13.92m and negative P&L reserves of £45.83m, even after £18.8m of debt having been restructured, as "bolstered". Not sufficiently, in any case.

Their accounts disclose net current liabilities in each and every year, £24.61m on average and varying between £13.5m and £42.41m, during the Romanov era (2005-2013). Any end user of the accounts viewing them with anything other than deep concern and scepticism, well, caveat lector. They were technically insolvent throughout, it was the eventual drying up of cash inflow from the equally insolvent parent that prompted administration. They were running on fumes for the last two years.

My immediate impression at the time (2011 specifically) was that it was window dressing so that the media, who evidently have difficulty understanding accounts, would say, "look, Hearts made a profit". (£511k. Their actual net loss that year was £8.3m on a turnover of £6.9m)

---

So many great contributions here. I am retiring in 2019 an worked in global finance for 25 years. I will write a book on my experiences but a longer article on how Hearts spent millions of other peoples money. Have got lots of good references already but more great data here. Had articles published in Herald and Financial Times so will target them first. I live in a very remote developing country so should be safe from the Jambo death threats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SingHibs

So many great contributions here. I am retiring in 2019 an worked in global finance for 25 years. I will write a book on my experiences but a longer article on how Hearts spent millions of other peoples money. Have got lots of good references already but more great data here. Had articles published in Herald and Financial Times so will target them first. I live in a very remote developing country so should be safe from the Jambo death threats.

---

So with all your expertise in Global Finance, you must know that everything that goes on within the banking world is not disclosed, especially to employees!

Much as it was cringe worthy at the time, if players knew they were not getting paid, they would have gone straight to the players union and the SFA to be released from their contracts!

If someone is supposed to own part of a bank and is prepared to help bankroll a team, not many clubs in Scotland could afford to turn it down!

My problem with the whole thing is "Due Diligence" was this done in a proper manner, I'm still not sure about the same has been done for King at Rangers????

Did Alexi Salmondski allegedly have a wee word in the ear of the Lithuanian leader in the last days before Hearts were saved ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by where'stheslope

So with all your expertise in Global Finance, you must know that everything that goes on within the banking world is not disclosed, especially to employees!

Much as it was cringe worthy at the time, if players knew they were not getting paid, they would have gone straight to the players union and the SFA to be released from their contracts!

If someone is supposed to own part of a bank and is prepared to help bankroll a team, not many clubs in Scotland could afford to turn it down!

My problem with the whole thing is "Due Diligence" was this done in a proper manner, I'm still not sure about the same has been done for King at Rangers????

---

The thing is 3 clubs did turn him down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

The thing is 3 clubs did turn him down.

---

Yes and Hearts were desperate - Murrayfield loomed with the sale of Tynie. It would not have taken much digging around to find out Romanov's true business record and his history with sports clubs. The fans, board and media choose to ignore it even when Ukio Bankas was initially in trouble despite information being widely available from new channels such as Bloomberg and Reuters. It was fairly simple to work out the UBIG- Ukio Bankas link for his bogus investment schemes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SingHibs

So many great contributions here. I am retiring in 2019 an worked in global finance for 25 years. I will write a book on my experiences but a longer article on how Hearts spent millions of other peoples money. Have got lots of good references already but more great data here. Had articles published in Herald and Financial Times so will target them first. I live in a very remote developing country so should be safe from the Jambo death threats.

---

It’s a noble cause SingHibs and we should all encourage you in your endeavours, not just Hibs fans but also anyone in Scottish football with an interest in openness and fair play. Best of luck with the project.

If it would be possible to make a personal request, I would love it if someone took on the task of providing some clarity and insight in to the current financing of HMFC and in particular how much of a gap there is between our own inflows and the money that is being thrown at the HMFC project. Most of this thread has been focussing on the Vlad period, but I think someone needs to delve deeper in to the current stream of cash that has been flooding into project HMFC since their admin period.

By my calculations there has been some £18m of other people’s money flow into the project (over and above the normal day to day income one might expect from a football club).

There’s no suggestion of financial impropriety from me, but £18m of outside cash is a lot of cash to be injected in to a club where large parts of it are anonymous and lacking in public disclosure with the only parts that might be repayable in the future are a small bank loan and perhaps the initial Budge purchase cost (which I doubt will ever be paid back to Budge).

Possible areas for investigation might include:

- Why are the various donations being received by HMFC being made under a cloak of anonymity and without any transparency?

- Is it normal in the football world for injected funds to be made with no disclosure as to their source?

- Why did HMFC feel the need to employ a VAT specialist on their board when no other club in Scotland does this? One might wonder if there are some VAT implications on the receipt of FoH donations or if it is acceptable for an organisation to receive a substantial part of it’s income devoid of any VAT effect?

- Why was there no clarity behind the sponsorship deal apart from “We got a stack of cash from someone who wants us to put Save the Children on our shirts”? Is this another matter where the VAT specialist Director was called upon to use his expertise?

- What might be the breakdown of the monthly payments made to FoH? Is there any clarity or is it all anonymous donations?

- For an approximate income of £1.5m p.a., one does wonder if it’s 8000 fans paying £15 a month or 7999 fans paying £5 a month and one massive £80k payment a month from one of the anonymous sources? Do all these donations come from individual supporters or is there a route within FoH for connected parties to make donations to the club anonymously?

One may sound like a jealous paranoid Hobo but there are a lot of murky areas in the current financing of HMFC which will probably have serious implications in the future in terms of what they can spend on their team versus what other teams in Scotland can spend (outwith the old firm). It would be somewhat frustrating to find after watching them lift another trophy that a lot of their income was derived from dubious sources, not that I’m suggesting this is the case.

I’m sure there’s an explanation for everything but certainly think it worthy of an investigation rather than a blind acceptance and a begrudging applause from fans of other teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocteautwin

It’s a noble cause SingHibs and we should all encourage you in your endeavours, not just Hibs fans but also anyone in Scottish football with an interest in openness and fair play. Best of luck with the project.

If it would be possible to make a personal request, I would love it if someone took on the task of providing some clarity and insight in to the current financing of HMFC and in particular how much of a gap there is between our own inflows and the money that is being thrown at the HMFC project. Most of this thread has been focussing on the Vlad period, but I think someone needs to delve deeper in to the current stream of cash that has been flooding into project HMFC since their admin period.

By my calculations there has been some £18m of other people’s money flow into the project (over and above the normal day to day income one might expect from a football club).

There’s no suggestion of financial impropriety from me, but £18m of outside cash is a lot of cash to be injected in to a club where large parts of it are anonymous and lacking in public disclosure with the only parts that might be repayable in the future are a small bank loan and perhaps the initial Budge purchase cost (which I doubt will ever be paid back to Budge).

Possible areas for investigation might include:

- Why are the various donations being received by HMFC being made under a cloak of anonymity and without any transparency?

- Is it normal in the football world for injected funds to be made with no disclosure as to their source?

- Why did HMFC feel the need to employ a VAT specialist on their board when no other club in Scotland does this? One might wonder if there are some VAT implications on the receipt of FoH donations or if it is acceptable for an organisation to receive a substantial part of it’s income devoid of any VAT effect?

- Why was there no clarity behind the sponsorship deal apart from “We got a stack of cash from someone who wants us to put Save the Children on our shirts”? Is this another matter where the VAT specialist Director was called upon to use his expertise?

- What might be the breakdown of the monthly payments made to FoH? Is there any clarity or is it all anonymous donations?

- For an approximate income of £1.5m p.a., one does wonder if it’s 8000 fans paying £15 a month or 7999 fans paying £5 a month and one massive £80k payment a month from one of the anonymous sources? Do all these donations come from individual supporters or is there a route within FoH for connected parties to make donations to the club anonymously?

One may sound like a jealous paranoid Hobo but there are a lot of murky areas in the current financing of HMFC which will probably have serious implications in the future in terms of what they can spend on their team versus what other teams in Scotland can spend (outwith the old firm). It would be somewhat frustrating to find after watching them lift another trophy that a lot of their income was derived from dubious sources, not that I’m suggesting this is the case.

I’m sure there’s an explanation for everything but certainly think it worthy of an investigation rather than a blind acceptance and a begrudging applause from fans of other teams.

---

That is a whole book on its own. Think we have to look at how Romanov gave birth to the new Hearts financial.model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SingHibs

That is a whole book on its own. Think we have to look at how Romanov gave birth to the new Hearts financial.model.

---

Land and property is one of the easiest things to sell in Edinburgh. Cala offered £20 million for tynecastle a few years before administration. It is not too far fetched too think the administrators or powers that be could be easily have achieved £10-£15 million to repay their creditors quite easily.

I want to know why a paltry £3 million was accepted from Budge and I think their would be a decent story in the reasons why.