Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-11-2013, 10:20 PM
Thecat23

At first I wanted them dead. Not now, I want then to suffer with such a **** team they will wish they were dead. Hibs are now on the up. Proper management team all the foundations laid in place and Hearts have nothing! We WILL dish out a few good derby doings in the future mark my words. Hearts will never be the team they were!

So sit back enjoy it and let the good time roll :D
13-11-2013, 07:35 AM
clerriehibs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thecat23

At first I wanted them dead. Not now, I want then to suffer with such a **** team they will wish they were dead. Hibs are now on the up. Proper management team all the foundations laid in place and Hearts have nothing! We WILL dish out a few good derby doings in the future mark my words. Hearts will never be the team they were!

So sit back enjoy it and let the good time roll :D

A good few doings? So they're not getting relegated, or will be bouncing right back up, then?

That doesn't sound like as good as dead to me, unfortunately.
13-11-2013, 07:47 AM
Jim44

Quote:

Originally Posted by clerriehibs

A good few doings? So they're not getting relegated, or will be bouncing right back up, then?

That doesn't sound like as good as dead to me, unfortunately.

I think relegation will be a close run thing between them and Killie. Knowing their undisputed luck, I wouldn'tbe surprised in the slightest if they get there with games to spare. I really don't know any more than anyone elsewhere they are going in terms of administration, CVA or liquidation but I tend to think that they will come out of this, not smeling of roses but in not such a sorry state as an awful lot of people think they will.
13-11-2013, 07:52 AM
Hermit Crab

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thecat23

At first I wanted them dead. Not now, I want then to suffer with such a **** team they will wish they were dead. Hibs are now on the up. Proper management team all the foundations laid in place and Hearts have nothing! We WILL dish out a few good derby doings in the future mark my words. Hearts will never be the team they were!

So sit back enjoy it and let the good time roll :D

I stuck my neck out when butcher was first touted for the job weeks ago and said to a few yam colleagues that if butcher got the job then we wouldn't lose to hearts again this season. I stand by that. Butcher won't accept anything less than 100% commitment on the 2nd of jan. This time it's our day. Happy new year yams.

Anyone else think it's going to work out that we get the chance to relegate in march at Tynecastle??
13-11-2013, 07:56 AM
PapillonVert

Quote:

Originally Posted by desantos0773

UBIG's biggest creditor is UKiO who poured loans to Romanov through them. UKIO's biggest creditor is the Lithuanian State so UBIG will vote in-line with UKIO and indications are they will accept CVA given their pursuit of Romanov and co for the £300 million the government pumped into to save the depositors. They see Hearts as innocent victims of the Romanov scam. The game is over.

What about the Lithuanian small savers and businesses who have lost everything in the great Romanov fraud? I would imgaine the Lithuanian admins/liquidators might be tempted to put their interests before those of a football club in Scotland.
13-11-2013, 08:11 AM
greenginger

Quote:

Originally Posted by PapillonVert

What about the Lithuanian small savers and businesses who have lost everything in the great Romanov fraud? I would imgaine the Lithuanian admins/liquidators might be tempted to put their interests before those of a football club in Scotland.

The Ukio creditors have a committee and their admin. said a while back he was referring the FoH offer to them.

May'be they swallowed the victim crap.

I still think the Yams biggest hurdle will be to get HMRC to vote to accept zilch taking account of their past payments behavior and failure to comply with their last HMRC arrangement.

I still can't understand why no media genius has asked BDO if they think HMRC will support the CVA on the 22nd. :confused:
13-11-2013, 08:14 AM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

The Ukio creditors have a committee and their admin. said a while back he was referring the FoH offer to them.

May'be they swallowed the victim crap.

I still think the Yams biggest hurdle will be to get HMRC to vote to accept zilch taking account of their past payments behavior and failure to comply with their last HMRC arrangement.

I still can't understand why no media genius has asked BDO if they think HMRC will support the CVA on the 22nd. :confused:

They don't need HMRC. They only need Ubig and Ukio. That makes up 75% of the vote.
13-11-2013, 08:15 AM
southsider

Quote:

Originally Posted by PapillonVert

What about the Lithuanian small savers and businesses who have lost everything in the great Romanov fraud? I would imgaine the Lithuanian admins/liquidators might be tempted to put their interests before those of a football club in Scotland.

What about me, you and every other tax payer in the UK getting scammed again by a bunch of thieves, led by my (hope to be ex) MP Murray. He should be sacked for not putting the interests of UK taxpayers first. When he comes to me door at election time he will be told.
13-11-2013, 08:16 AM
Hermit Crab

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

The Ukio creditors have a committee and their admin. said a while back he was referring the FoH offer to them.

May'be they swallowed the victim crap.

I still think the Yams biggest hurdle will be to get HMRC to vote to accept zilch taking account of their past payments behavior and failure to comply with their last HMRC arrangement.

I still can't understand why no media genius has asked BDO if they think HMRC will support the CVA on the 22nd. :confused:

They won't will they? Is it not hmrc policy to vote against cva things?
13-11-2013, 08:42 AM
Thecat23

Quote:

Originally Posted by clerriehibs

A good few doings? So they're not getting relegated, or will be bouncing right back up, then?

That doesn't sound like as good as dead to me, unfortunately.

We still have at least 2 more games against them. So could easily dish one out in those ones. Always cup comps if they drop. Just because they won't be in the league doesn't mean it's the last we play them.
13-11-2013, 08:55 AM
greenginger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

They don't need HMRC. They only need Ubig and Ukio. That makes up 75% of the vote.

They also need 50% of the vote of non-connected parties ( can Cav. Cwg, Pts, Robin.p please confirm I'm not mistaken )

Both Ukio and UBIG are connected . HMRC is more than 50% on its own in the non-connected category.
13-11-2013, 09:12 AM
robinp

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

They also need 50% of the vote of non-connected parties ( can Cav. Cwg, Pts, Robin.p please confirm I'm not mistaken )

Both Ukio and UBIG are connected . HMRC is more than 50% on its own in the non-connected category.

I was going to PM this to you but i guess it's worthwhile posting here. This is the Rangers CVA proposal which ultimately failed. Check page 55 of the PDF regarding Requisite Majorities at Creditors’ Meetings which is included as an appendix for information purposes of the creditors for when they vote (so they know the rules and implications): http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpr...a-proposal.pdf

Paragraphs 2 and 4 state (as I have already posted):
(2) A resolution to approve the proposal or a modification is passed when a majority of
three quarters or more (in value) of those present and voting in person or by proxy
have voted in favour of it.

However Paragraph 4 caveats (as I have already posted):
(4) Any resolution is invalid if those voting against it include more than half in value of the
creditors—
(a) to whom notice of the meeting was sent;
(b) whose votes are not to be left out of account under paragraph (3); and
(c) who are not, to the best of the chairman‘s belief, persons connected with the
company.

I am going to run this by my IP boss on Friday when he is back in. To me the wording is pretty cut and dry. What this says, IMO, is that of the total creditors who are not connected to the club in some way (that definition is a few pages back), if 50% reject the CVA it fails. Green Ginger produced a list and he had worked out that of the 26 million creditors, HMRC represent over 50% of the non-connected creditors by value. i.e. if they reject, it fails (based on the rules I have posted and DP included in their CVA proposal for Rangers too).
13-11-2013, 09:19 AM
greenginger

Quote:

Originally Posted by robinp

I was going to PM this to you but i guess it's worthwhile posting here. This is the Rangers CVA proposal which ultimately failed. Check page 55 of the PDF regarding Requisite Majorities at Creditors’ Meetings which is included as an appendix for information purposes of the creditors for when they vote (so they know the rules and implications): http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpr...a-proposal.pdf

Paragraphs 2 and 4 state (as I have already posted):
(2) A resolution to approve the proposal or a modification is passed when a majority of
three quarters or more (in value) of those present and voting in person or by proxy
have voted in favour of it.

However Paragraph 4 caveats (as I have already posted):
(4) Any resolution is invalid if those voting against it include more than half in value of the
creditors—
(a) to whom notice of the meeting was sent;
(b) whose votes are not to be left out of account under paragraph (3); and
(c) who are not, to the best of the chairman‘s belief, persons connected with the
company.

I am going to run this by my IP boss on Friday when he is back in. To me the wording is pretty cut and dry. What this says, IMO, is that of the total creditors who are not connected to the club in some way (that definition is a few pages back), if 50% reject the CVA it fails. Green Ginger produced a list and he had worked out that of the 26 million creditors, HMRC represent over 50% of the connected creditors by value. i.e. if they reject, it fails (based on the rules I have posted and DP included in their CVA proposal for Rangers too),

Thanks, I might call a sports jurno and ask why its being ignored.
13-11-2013, 09:19 AM
Glesgahibby

Lots of ifs and buts regarding voting structures,
75 percent ? 1st vote and 50 percent ? Second vote.
lots of UBIG need to vote with UKIO ?
HMRC can scupper the second vote?
Is abstaining the same as a no vote ?
Do UKIO and UBIG creditors vote on how to vote ?
Will football creditors be allowed to vote as there debts,as per CVA(foh) will be paid ?
Will Vlads faraway nest egg company be allowed to vote ?
Will present employees of HMFC(wages) be allowed to vote ?
Will EDC vote and if so will we know how they voted ?
Will yams with no share certicates(in the post since March) be allowed to vote ?
:rolleyes::confused::rolleyes::confused::rolleyes: :confused::rolleyes::confused:
13-11-2013, 09:47 AM
Hermit Crab

Quote:

Originally Posted by robinp

I was going to PM this to you but i guess it's worthwhile posting here. This is the Rangers CVA proposal which ultimately failed. Check page 55 of the PDF regarding Requisite Majorities at Creditors’ Meetings which is included as an appendix for information purposes of the creditors for when they vote (so they know the rules and implications): http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpr...a-proposal.pdf

Paragraphs 2 and 4 state (as I have already posted):
(2) A resolution to approve the proposal or a modification is passed when a majority of
three quarters or more (in value) of those present and voting in person or by proxy
have voted in favour of it.

However Paragraph 4 caveats (as I have already posted):
(4) Any resolution is invalid if those voting against it include more than half in value of the
creditors—
(a) to whom notice of the meeting was sent;
(b) whose votes are not to be left out of account under paragraph (3); and
(c) who are not, to the best of the chairman‘s belief, persons connected with the
company.

I am going to run this by my IP boss on Friday when he is back in. To me the wording is pretty cut and dry. What this says, IMO, is that of the total creditors who are not connected to the club in some way (that definition is a few pages back), if 50% reject the CVA it fails. Green Ginger produced a list and he had worked out that of the 26 million creditors, HMRC represent over 50% of the non-connected creditors by value. i.e. if they reject, it fails (based on the rules I have posted and DP included in their CVA proposal for Rangers too).

Daffy time?
13-11-2013, 10:15 AM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by robinp

I was going to PM this to you but i guess it's worthwhile posting here. This is the Rangers CVA proposal which ultimately failed. Check page 55 of the PDF regarding Requisite Majorities at Creditors’ Meetings which is included as an appendix for information purposes of the creditors for when they vote (so they know the rules and implications): http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpr...a-proposal.pdf

Paragraphs 2 and 4 state (as I have already posted):
(2) A resolution to approve the proposal or a modification is passed when a majority of
three quarters or more (in value) of those present and voting in person or by proxy
have voted in favour of it.

However Paragraph 4 caveats (as I have already posted):
(4) Any resolution is invalid if those voting against it include more than half in value of the
creditors—
(a) to whom notice of the meeting was sent;
(b) whose votes are not to be left out of account under paragraph (3); and
(c) who are not, to the best of the chairman‘s belief, persons connected with the
company.

I am going to run this by my IP boss on Friday when he is back in. To me the wording is pretty cut and dry. What this says, IMO, is that of the total creditors who are not connected to the club in some way (that definition is a few pages back), if 50% reject the CVA it fails. Green Ginger produced a list and he had worked out that of the 26 million creditors, HMRC represent over 50% of the non-connected creditors by value. i.e. if they reject, it fails (based on the rules I have posted and DP included in their CVA proposal for Rangers too).

Just had a look on Kickback and they obviously have a positive spin on this. They are claiming that only individuals count in this rule and not companies. Is it possible they are right?

....

Potential hiccups to their CVA are

1. Ukio vote against. Unlikely it seems now.
2. Ubig vote against. Impossible to know yet. They appear to not benefit either way. As their admin still has to generate his own fees I'd be surprised if they were not looking for something from FoH.
3. The 50% of non connected rule. I've only just realised this could come into play. Hopefully it works as we think.
4. The Frozen shares and the legal process in Lithuania. Hopefully Sergey is on the money on this one as it's never been mentioned elsewhere.
Any others?
Is this all just wishful thinking?
Guess we'll find out in the next 9 days.
13-11-2013, 10:36 AM
Weststandwanab

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

The Ukio creditors have a committee and their admin. said a while back he was referring the FoH offer to them.

May'be they swallowed the victim crap.

I still think the Yams biggest hurdle will be to get HMRC to vote to accept zilch taking account of their past payments behavior and failure to comply with their last HMRC arrangement.

I still can't understand why no media genius has asked BDO if they think HMRC will support the CVA on the 22nd. :confused:

Because they know the answer H.M.R.C. will not vote to accept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

They don't need HMRC. They only need Ubig and Ukio. That makes up 75% of the vote.

Correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by southsider

What about me, you and every other tax payer in the UK getting scammed again by a bunch of thieves, led by my (hope to be ex) MP Murray. He should be sacked for not putting the interests of UK taxpayers first. When he comes to me door at election time he will be told.

Remember there is a General Election coming

Quote:

Originally Posted by robinp

I was going to PM this to you but i guess it's worthwhile posting here. This is the Rangers CVA proposal which ultimately failed. Check page 55 of the PDF regarding Requisite Majorities at Creditors’ Meetings which is included as an appendix for information purposes of the creditors for when they vote (so they know the rules and implications): http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpr...a-proposal.pdf

Paragraphs 2 and 4 state (as I have already posted):
(2) A resolution to approve the proposal or a modification is passed when a majority of
three quarters or more (in value) of those present and voting in person or by proxy
have voted in favour of it.

However Paragraph 4 caveats (as I have already posted):
(4) Any resolution is invalid if those voting against it include more than half in value of the
creditors—
(a) to whom notice of the meeting was sent;
(b) whose votes are not to be left out of account under paragraph (3); and
(c) who are not, to the best of the chairman‘s belief, persons connected with the
company.

I am going to run this by my IP boss on Friday when he is back in. To me the wording is pretty cut and dry. What this says, IMO, is that of the total creditors who are not connected to the club in some way (that definition is a few pages back), if 50% reject the CVA it fails. Green Ginger produced a list and he had worked out that of the 26 million creditors, HMRC represent over 50% of the non-connected creditors by value. i.e. if they reject, it fails (based on the rules I have posted and DP included in their CVA proposal for Rangers too).

I believe this to be the case.
13-11-2013, 10:58 AM
Fife-Hibee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermit Crab

I stuck my neck out when butcher was first touted for the job weeks ago and said to a few yam colleagues that if butcher got the job then we wouldn't lose to hearts again this season. I stand by that. Butcher won't accept anything less than 100% commitment on the 2nd of jan. This time it's our day. Happy new year yams.

Anyone else think it's going to work out that we get the chance to relegate in march at Tynecastle??

So hope your right :-)
13-11-2013, 10:58 AM
StevieC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weststandwanab

"They don't need HMRC. They only need Ubig and Ukio. That makes up 75% of the vote." - Correct.

"if 50% (of non-connected creditors) reject the CVA it fails.. HMRC represent over 50% of the non-connected creditors" - I believe this to be the case.

You seem to be contradicting yourself? Could you clarify? :confused:
13-11-2013, 10:58 AM
robinp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Just had a look on Kickback and they obviously have a positive spin on this. They are claiming that only individuals count in this rule and not companies. Is it possible they are right?

They could well be right (I dont pretend to know everything). :-)

But, following the definition through, as I posted before, connected with the company can mean an associate. Under definition of associate it mentions associated companies.

Im not posting my opinion as fact, just my opinion. I think it could apply, it might not.
13-11-2013, 11:02 AM
clerriehibs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thecat23

We still have at least 2 more games against them. So could easily dish one out in those ones. Always cup comps if they drop. Just because they won't be in the league doesn't mean it's the last we play them.

Unless they're in the same division as us, there won't be 'a good few' anything.

Anyone that thinks the near death of the yams means we'll be giving them a roasting in a regular basis is sadly mistaken. We'll either hardly ever see them, or they'll survive in the top league where, to be honest, hibs have never established superiority over anyone for years and years.

Best prospect all round is to sort them out good and proper in the minimum of one remaining games, and pray that they don't survive in the top league.
13-11-2013, 12:10 PM
Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by clerriehibs

Unless they're in the same division as us, there won't be 'a good few' anything.

Anyone that thinks the near death of the yams means we'll be giving them a roasting in a regular basis is sadly mistaken. We'll either hardly ever see them, or they'll survive in the top league where, to be honest, hibs have never established superiority over anyone for years and years.

Best prospect all round is to sort them out good and proper in the minimum of one remaining games, and pray that they don't survive in the top league.

If Terry is given time to get his philosophies over then the days of them dominating "just because they do" will be well and truly over. People can say its nothing but talk but it actually isn't. He's done it with Caley and he can do even more with this club.

I don't believe we have anything to fear from them any more, and that's not even taking their financial constraints into consideration. The day any group of fans starts collectively crapping themselves about their rivals to the point they worry about being in the same league as them is the day to jack it in...or give themselves a slap.

They're going to take a beating from us and after that we will be wanting to play them every week. It's on the cards.
13-11-2013, 02:05 PM
Deansy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thecat23

At first I wanted them dead. Not now, I want then to suffer with such a **** team they will wish they were dead. Hibs are now on the up. Proper management team all the foundations laid in place and Hearts have nothing! We WILL dish out a few good derby doings in the future mark my words. Hearts will never be the team they were!

So sit back enjoy it and let the good time roll :D

Their last 30+ years have been made possible entirely due to cheating. Their younger supporters have never seen the 'Real Hearts', what they're 'capable' of and exactly how low the depths they can (and will !!) sink to .................................... they're about to discover and their 'discoveries' will be our supreme pleasure !!
13-11-2013, 02:24 PM
greenpaper55

I can remember them being so bad they got relegated for the first time, none of them ever thought it could happen but lo and behold it happened again a few years later and this time they stayed down for two seasons. That was the real Yams and the crowds were 4 and 5 thousand, all going to come their way , Karma and all that !.
13-11-2013, 03:51 PM
clerriehibs

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter douglas

If Terry is given time to get his philosophies over then the days of them dominating "just because they do" will be well and truly over. People can say its nothing but talk but it actually isn't. He's done it with Caley and he can do even more with this club.

I don't believe we have anything to fear from them any more, and that's not even taking their financial constraints into consideration. The day any group of fans starts collectively crapping themselves about their rivals to the point they worry about being in the same league as them is the day to jack it in...or give themselves a slap.

They're going to take a beating from us and after that we will be wanting to play them every week. It's on the cards.

what's on the cards? That hearts are ****ed and we'll be giving them a good few doings? Wrong.

Hertz are either ****ed and are out of the premiership for a few years.

Or they remain in the premiership..

Either way, we won't be giving them a good few doings, because they either won't be playing us or because we don't give ANYONE in the top league regular doings.

People have been dreaming about hertz going bust or just being screwed and us then hammering them regularly. Those dreams are incompatible.
13-11-2013, 04:23 PM
JeMeSouviens

Quote:

Originally Posted by clerriehibs

what's on the cards? That hearts are ****ed and we'll be giving them a good few doings? Wrong.

Hertz are either ****ed and are out of the premiership for a few years.

Or they remain in the premiership..

Either way, we won't be giving them a good few doings, because they either won't be playing us or because we don't give ANYONE in the top league regular doings.

People have been dreaming about hertz going bust or just being screwed and us then hammering them regularly. Those dreams are incompatible.

Personally, I'd settle for 2 large doings going towards their relegation. Make it so, Tel!
13-11-2013, 04:29 PM
Weststandwanab

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevieC

You seem to be contradicting yourself? Could you clarify? :confused:

Certainly sorry. The first point is correct because H.M.R.C. would not be required if UKIO and UBIG vote for a C.V.A. if a C.V.A. is ever produced and the second point I believe to be the case. The contradiction - and I agree there seems to - hinges on the definition and perception of "Connected Persons". F.O.H. may argue that UBIG, UKIO, and possibly other creditors s are connected because they wish a C.V.A. to succeed but H.M.R.C. and other creditors may argue they are not connected because they wish any C.V.A. to fail. This will only become clear - and negotiable - once creditors who are able to vote for or against any C.V.A. that is proposed.
13-11-2013, 04:43 PM
clerriehibs

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Personally, I'd settle for 2 large doings going towards their relegation. Make it so, Tel!

Top 6 finish might be a requirement for tel, tho ...
13-11-2013, 04:48 PM
Jack

Quote:

Originally Posted by clerriehibs

Top 6 finish might be a requirement for tel, tho ...

Remember 6th position is just for passing place for where we want to be.
13-11-2013, 04:48 PM
JeMeSouviens

Quote:

Originally Posted by clerriehibs

Top 6 finish might be a requirement for tel, tho ...

We have 2 derbies before the split.
13-11-2013, 04:50 PM
clerriehibs

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

We have 2 derbies before the split.

We do, sorry, I'm letting my gloom at them most likely slimeing their way out of this get the better of me.
13-11-2013, 04:56 PM
greenginger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weststandwanab

Certainly sorry. The first point is correct because H.M.R.C. would not be required if UKIO and UBIG vote for a C.V.A. if a C.V.A. is ever produced and the second point I believe to be the case. The contradiction - and I agree there seems to - hinges on the definition and perception of "Connected Persons". F.O.H. may argue that UBIG, UKIO, and possibly other creditors s are connected because they wish a C.V.A. to succeed but H.M.R.C. and other creditors may argue they are not connected because they wish any C.V.A. to fail. This will only become clear - and negotiable - once creditors who are able to vote for or against any C.V.A. that is proposed.

I think you have it the wrong way round. If Ukio , UBIG and Vlad's other companies are shown to be CONNECTED their votes don't count in the 50% assessment and HMRC would have the majority vote and would seal the Yams fate.

The definition of connected persons and companies is long established in HMRC guides and these Companies are Connected.
13-11-2013, 05:25 PM
Weststandwanab

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

I think you have it the wrong way round. If Ukio , UBIG and Vlad's other companies are shown to be CONNECTED their votes don't count in the 50% assessment and HMRC would have the majority vote and would seal the Yams fate.

The definition of connected persons and companies is long established in HMRC guides and these Companies are Connected.

Yes that is what I meant sorry I typed to quickly. H.M.R.C. guides are just that a guideline, some creditor may challenge this who knows ?
13-11-2013, 05:26 PM
Kato

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weststandwanab

......if UKIO and UBIG vote for a C.V.A.......

Do UKIO get a vote, what with them being a secured creditor?
13-11-2013, 05:40 PM
greenginger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weststandwanab

Yes that is what I meant sorry I typed to quickly. H.M.R.C. guides are just that a guideline, some creditor may challenge this who knows ?

The Hearts accounts state Vlad is the ultimate controller of HOMFC and UBIG. They also state Vlad is controller of Milson Capital, UAB Businessline and Ensco 165, although Ensco has been dissolved.

Even without Vlad, Olga Goncaruk, Vlad's sister is an Officer of Ukio Bankas as she is on the supervisory board and her daughter Juljia was a Heart's director and her nephew Roman was Heart's chairman.

You don't get much more connected than that ! :greengrin
13-11-2013, 05:54 PM
Leithenhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

The Hearts accounts state Vlad is the ultimate controller of HOMFC and UBIG. They also state Vlad is controller of Milson Capital, UAB Businessline and Ensco 165, although Ensco has been dissolved.

Even without Vlad, Olga Goncaruk, Vlad's sister is an Officer of Ukio Bankas as she is on the supervisory board and her daughter Juljia was a Heart's director and her nephew Roman was Heart's chairman.

You don't get much more connected than that ! :greengrin

Biggest smile I've had all day :aok:
13-11-2013, 06:13 PM
Weststandwanab

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

The Hearts accounts state Vlad is the ultimate controller of HOMFC and UBIG. They also state Vlad is controller of Milson Capital, UAB Businessline and Ensco 165, although Ensco has been dissolved.

Even without Vlad, Olga Goncaruk, Vlad's sister is an Officer of Ukio Bankas as she is on the supervisory board and her daughter Juljia was a Heart's director and her nephew Roman was Heart's chairman.

You don't get much more connected than that ! :greengrin

I agree but apart from the "was" and the fact that some of these parties are registered out with the U.K., these are guides and are not legal statutes. Remember when Servo "won"an appeal.
13-11-2013, 06:42 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kato

Do UKIO get a vote, what with them being a secured creditor?

Yes. Their vote is 'worth' the unsecured portion. So....deduct 6.8 m from the total debt to get the voting value .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weststandwanab

Yes that is what I meant sorry I typed to quickly. H.M.R.C. guides are just that a guideline, some creditor may challenge this who knows ?

Don't think they're HMRC guides. AFAIK they are statutory.

I'm still on holiday, so may have missed something. .....but isn't that what Robin said?
13-11-2013, 06:44 PM
Kato

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Yes. Their vote is 'worth' the unsecured portion. So....deduct 6.8 m from the total debt to get the voting value .

cheers
13-11-2013, 06:52 PM
Weststandwanab

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Don't think they're HMRC guides. AFAIK they are statutory.

I'm still on holiday, so may have missed something. .....but isn't that what Robin said?

StevieC said they were "guides" and in my experience with H.M.R.C. cases "guides" and ex-statutory instruments can always be challenged. I think the more pertinent issue was the interpretation of "connected".
13-11-2013, 06:54 PM
greenginger

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Yes. Their vote is 'worth' the unsecured portion. So....deduct 6.8 m from the total debt to get the voting value .

£ 6.8 millon off of Ukio Bankas total debt is £ 8,688,000 but that won't count on 50% non-connected vote if they are deemed to be an associated company.

Did Hibs.net give permission for you to be off on holiday ? :greengrin
13-11-2013, 06:58 PM
CyberSauzee

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

The Hearts accounts state Vlad is the ultimate controller of HOMFC and UBIG. They also state Vlad is controller of Milson Capital, UAB Businessline and Ensco 165, although Ensco has been dissolved.

Even without Vlad, Olga Goncaruk, Vlad's sister is an Officer of Ukio Bankas as she is on the supervisory board and her daughter Juljia was a Heart's director and her nephew Roman was Heart's chairman.

You don't get much more connected than that ! :greengrin

And not forgetting the "we owe the money to ourselves" mantra.
13-11-2013, 07:05 PM
Frazerbob

Estimated crowd of "4-5k" for their big fundraising game against Wolfsberg Reserves according to sickback.
13-11-2013, 07:20 PM
Pedantic_Hibee

Desantos has fair changed his tune.
13-11-2013, 07:20 PM
greenginger

Quote:

Originally Posted by AberGreen

Estimated crowd of "4-5k" for their big fundraising game against Wolfsberg Reserves according to sickback.

I forgot that game was on tonight, had to look again at the EEN and there is 3 lines on it hidden in the very small Yam article.

The Big team will not be happy !
13-11-2013, 07:24 PM
weonlywon6-2

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Personally, I'd settle for 2 large doings going towards their relegation. Make it so, Tel!

If there was a chance that we could relegate them by wining at the wonga dome then that would be just the best ever !!
13-11-2013, 07:26 PM
SteveHFC

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BY-iYHuCMAEoMc-.jpg :faf:
13-11-2013, 07:30 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

£ 6.8 millon off of Ukio Bankas total debt is £ 8,688,000 but that won't count on 50% non-connected vote if they are deemed to be an associated company.

Did Hibs.net give permission for you to be off on holiday ? :greengrin

I was on a scouting mission for our El Tel the other night. I took in the Real Betis-Barca game. Unfortunately, my main target went off injured after 20 minutes or so. Lenny Messy or something.

My attention then turned to one of the Betis players who is probably more our calibre. His name. ..and I kid you not....is Juan Kar
13-11-2013, 07:36 PM
StevieC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weststandwanab

StevieC said they were "guides"

Not me, I rarely make statements about stuff I know very little about. :wink:

You must be confusing me with someone else's post?
13-11-2013, 07:38 PM
Springbank

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveHFC

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BY-iYHuCMAEoMc-.jpg :faf:

I'm in! Or is it urine?
I can never remember
13-11-2013, 07:47 PM
PatHead

Quote:

Originally Posted by AberGreen

Estimated crowd of "4-5k" for their big fundraising game against Wolfsberg Reserves according to sickback.

According to the resident yam at work they needed 8,000 to break even. If that is true they will make a loss. In Jambo words................... PLEASING. Another step to Jambogeddon
13-11-2013, 07:47 PM
weecounty hibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

My attention then turned to one of the Betis players who is probably more our calibre. His name. ..and I kid you not....is Juan Kar

Surely he would be more suited to the yams. He would fit in well with all the other Juan Kars!!!!!
13-11-2013, 07:48 PM
Hermit Crab

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatHead

According to the resident yam at work they needed 8,000 to break even. If that is true they will make a loss. In Jambo words................... PLEASING. Another step to Jambogeddon

We don't know what the attendance is though. I can tell you it's 0-0 though.
13-11-2013, 08:00 PM
Www1875hfc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermit Crab

We don't know what the attendance is though. I can tell you it's 0-0 though.

5535 is tonight's crowd.
13-11-2013, 08:00 PM
Scònaldò

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermit Crab

We don't know what the attendance is though. I can tell you it's 0-0 though.

5535
13-11-2013, 08:01 PM
carnoustiehibee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermit Crab

We don't know what the attendance is though. I can tell you it's 0-0 though.

@BarryAnderson_8: 5535 is tonight's crowd for #Hearts v #Wolfsburg.
13-11-2013, 08:03 PM
Jonnyboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by carnoustiehibee

@BarryAnderson_8: 5535 is tonight's crowd for #Hearts v #Wolfsburg.

Surprised Wolfsburg brought so many with them!
13-11-2013, 08:03 PM
weecounty hibby

But but but where are the 400,000 when they are needed for fundraising. Have they all got more important prior engagements like their hero Rudi the rat. Fuds every last one of them
13-11-2013, 08:07 PM
carnoustiehibee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonnyboy

Surprised Wolfsburg brought so many with them!

32% possession 2 shots on target and 1 corner with a quick check on sky bet. A great fundraiser to warm your cockles in these Baltic conditions
13-11-2013, 08:07 PM
PatHead

Quote:

Originally Posted by carnoustiehibee

@BarryAnderson_8: 5535 is tonight's crowd for #Hearts v #Wolfsburg.

Assuming 8000 was the break even crowd and an average of £15 per head this means they made a profit of -£36,795. Oops!
13-11-2013, 08:08 PM
Hermit Crab

Tickets were £15, £12, £7 and £2. Lol. £15 and £7 were non season ticket holders prices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatHead

Assuming 8000 was the break even crowd and an average of £15 per head this means they made a profit of -£36,795. Oops!

Plus they've got to pay the players, staff, police and stewards and not to mention Wolfsburg must get a snip for coming over.
13-11-2013, 08:11 PM
weecounty hibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatHead

Assuming 8000 was the break even crowd and an average of £15 per head this means they made a profit of -£36,795. Oops!

How will Allisbarry turn that into a good news story for the yams? Surely even the thickest of them will see that it has been a disaster. They really are the joke that just keeps coming up with new punchlines
13-11-2013, 08:11 PM
PatHead

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermit Crab

Tickets were £15, £12, £7 and £2. Lol. £15 and £7 were non season ticket holders prices.

Well assuming an average of £9 per scull only £22,185 loss. S******

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermit Crab

Plus they've got to pay the players, staff, police and stewards and not to mention Wolfsburg must get a snip for coming over.

Would assume the break even cost took into account all these costs.
13-11-2013, 08:13 PM
Hermit Crab

Financial meltdown (CVA in progress)

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatHead

Well assuming an average of £9 per scull only £22,185 loss. S******

Hardly a crowd puller is it.
13-11-2013, 08:15 PM
hibees 7062

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveHFC

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BY-iYHuCMAEoMc-.jpg :faf:

Why is Neilson there ?
13-11-2013, 08:17 PM
soupy

Quote:

Originally Posted by hibees 7062

Why is Neilson there ?

I think he took over from Darren Murray or something like that..
13-11-2013, 08:18 PM
Jonnyboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by soupy

I think he took over from Darren Murray or something like that..

Yep he's their new youth team coach which, by definition, makes him a first team coach too :agree:
13-11-2013, 08:19 PM
kaimendhibs

Ha ha, that's a big team fund raiser crowd if ever I saw one. FAF

Sent from my iphone
13-11-2013, 08:20 PM
Hermit Crab

The huge big **** off massive big team drew 0-0.
13-11-2013, 08:20 PM
Leithenhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by AberGreen

Estimated crowd of "4-5k" for their big fundraising game against Wolfsberg Reserves according to sickback.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatHead

According to the resident yam at work they needed 8,000 to break even. If that is true they will make a loss. In Jambo words................... PLEASING. Another step to Jambogeddon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermit Crab

We don't know what the attendance is though. I can tell you it's 0-0 though.

You do now...5535 :wink:
13-11-2013, 08:22 PM
hibees 7062

Quote:

Originally Posted by soupy

I think he took over from Darren Murray or something like that..

:aok:
13-11-2013, 08:27 PM
Weststandwanab

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevieC

Not me, I rarely make statements about stuff I know very little about. :wink:

You must be confusing me with someone else's post?

Apologies Sir I am indeed confused not for the first time today !

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatHead

Assuming 8000 was the break even crowd and an average of £15 per head this means they made a profit of -£36,795. Oops!

Also need to deduct the V.A.T.element so a:na na: bigger net loss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermit Crab

Hardly a crowd puller is it.

Substitue crowd for .........
13-11-2013, 08:28 PM
HIBERNIAN-0762

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

You do now...5535 :wink:

:hilarious:hilarious:hilarious
13-11-2013, 08:30 PM
hibees 7062

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonnyboy

Yep he's their new youth team coach which, by definition, makes him a first team coach too :agree:

Player/coach/coach , treble wages then ? :greengrin
13-11-2013, 08:31 PM
#FromTheCapital

Quote:

Originally Posted by hibees 7062

Why is Neilson there ?

Perhaps BDO are trying to change hearts paedophile image and distract any would-be Craig Thomson/Graham Rix types by sticking a hairy fanny in the dug out.
13-11-2013, 08:32 PM
Jonnyboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by hibees 7062

Player/coach/coach , treble wages then ? :greengrin

Almost. He does three jobs but only gets paid for one of them. Yamenomics :greengrin
13-11-2013, 08:33 PM
jodjam

My son is following Barry Anderson's tweets. According to BA hertz brought on a lad called angus beith. Really hope this lad signs for Aberdeen
13-11-2013, 08:43 PM
HUTCHYHIBBY

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermit Crab

Plus they've got to pay the players, staff, police and stewards and not to mention Wolfsburg must get a snip for coming over.

I hope these folk arnae relying on seeing any cash from the wongadome.
13-11-2013, 08:48 PM
chrisski33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Www1875hfc

5535 is tonight's crowd.

Hahaha so much for the "big" team! Thats pathetic! But they are a pathetic club
13-11-2013, 08:59 PM
Gus Fring

BDO were worried a few days ago that this endeavour would actually cost them money. I can't imagine there's much in it either way.
13-11-2013, 09:04 PM
Fat Penlon

Why are administrators speculating to accumulate?
13-11-2013, 09:07 PM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Penlon

Why are administrators speculating to accumulate?

My thoughts exactly. Have they gone native?
13-11-2013, 09:14 PM
rcarter1

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisski33

Hahaha so much for the "big" team! Thats pathetic! But they are a pathetic club

The prospect of Butchers army descending on them repeatedly has convinced them that seconding to the third division might not be such a bad idea..
13-11-2013, 09:33 PM
hibee_nation

Quote:

Originally Posted by jodjam

My son is following Barry Anderson's tweets. According to BA hertz brought on a lad called angus beith. Really hope this lad signs for Aberdeen

Butcher would know what to do with him. :wink:
13-11-2013, 10:06 PM
Spike Mandela

The low crowd suggests to me that the mindset of the Hearts fans has changed and they think (rightly or wrongly) that they are over the worst and a CVA is all but finalised and administration is nearly over.:cb
13-11-2013, 10:09 PM
Hermit Crab

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

The low crowd suggests to me that the mindset of the Hearts fans has changed and they think (rightly or wrongly) that they are over the worst and a CVA is all but finalised and administration is nearly over.:cb

For someone that knows hee haw about this financial stuff, where are they at the moment? Close to being saved, close to being liquidated or somewhere in the middle?
13-11-2013, 11:33 PM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermit Crab

For someone that knows hee haw about this financial stuff, where are they at the moment? Close to being saved, close to being liquidated or somewhere in the middle?

Some of us think they are about to be liquidated. Some of us think they are saved. Some of us think somewhere in the middle. Some of is don't know.
Hope that clears it all up for you. :-)
14-11-2013, 12:18 AM
Hermit Crab

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Some of us think they are about to be liquidated. Some of us think they are saved. Some of us think somewhere in the middle. Some of is don't know.
Hope that clears it all up for you. :-)

Erm yeah crystal.
14-11-2013, 07:48 AM
greenginger

http://translate.googleusercontent.c...27SeQudV7NuEYw

Ukio Bankas Bad Bank getting its property assets auctioned off today.

They should have enforced the security on the PBS and added the " development opportunity " to the auction lots.

FoH could have gone along and bid their standing orders against the other vultures looking to make a fast buck.
14-11-2013, 09:30 AM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

http://translate.googleusercontent.c...27SeQudV7NuEYw

Ukio Bankas Bad Bank getting its property assets auctioned off today.

They should have enforced the security on the PBS and added the " development opportunity " to the auction lots.

FoH could have gone along and bid their standing orders against the other vultures looking to make a fast buck.

Does this mean the assets aren't frozen?
14-11-2013, 10:03 AM
Gus Fring

My source confirmed to me this morning that last nights game was not profitable. "Not even close". He also tells me walk up revenue from league games has fallen sharply as well.

Perhaps their fans are finally getting sick of plying money into the club for over a year whilst watching the situation getting worse rather than better?
14-11-2013, 10:11 AM
Hermit Crab

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bajillions

My source confirmed to me this morning that last nights game was not profitable. "Not even close". He also tells me walk up revenue from league games has fallen sharply as well.

Perhaps their fans are finally getting sick of plying money into the club for over a year whilst watching the situation getting worse rather than better?

That was always going to happen. Nobody consistently walks up and pays to see a losing team. The idea that they would sell out every home game regardless of results was preposterous from the outset. They all say they'll go but when it comes to parting with the cash, that's a different story. Loyal my hoop.
14-11-2013, 10:29 AM
#FromTheCapital

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Does this mean the assets aren't frozen?

Its only UBIG's assets that are frozen not ukio's
14-11-2013, 10:52 AM
MB62

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bajillions

My source confirmed to me this morning that last nights game was not profitable. "Not even close". He also tells me walk up revenue from league games has fallen sharply as well.

Perhaps their fans are finally getting sick of plying money into the club for over a year whilst watching the situation getting worse rather than better?

I wouldn't have thought the German team would have come over here without a fee being paid to them so with a crowd of just over 5,000, BDO will be having kittens at the loss made on this venture.
14-11-2013, 11:00 AM
JimBHibees

Quote:

Originally Posted by MB62

I wouldn't have thought the German team would have come over here without a fee being paid to them so with a crowd of just over 5,000, BDO will be having kittens at the loss made on this venture.

Seems a bit odd that they didnt try and get this or a similar game on the Saturday when there is next to no football on what with the ridiculous Friday /Tuesday international matches. In saying that Scotland are playing rugby so maybe that is the reason. In any case Wolfsberg while no doubt a decent team arent really a massive draw crowd wise IMO. Almost feels like some people going through the motions of trying to save them rather than genuinely doing so.
14-11-2013, 11:12 AM
Hermit Crab

Financial meltdown (CVA in progress)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Seems a bit odd that they didnt try and get this or a similar game on the Saturday when there is next to no football on what with the ridiculous Friday /Tuesday international matches. In saying that Scotland are playing rugby so maybe that is the reason. In any case Wolfsberg while no doubt a decent team arent really a massive draw crowd wise IMO. Almost feels like some people going through the motions of trying to save them rather than genuinely doing so.

The rugger is on Sunday this week isn't it?
14-11-2013, 11:34 AM
Golden Bear

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermit Crab

The rugger is on Sunday this week isn't it?

:agree:

I think the rugby is on Sunday as well.

:wink:
14-11-2013, 01:33 PM
EK_Hibs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bajillions

My source confirmed to me this morning that last nights game was not profitable. "Not even close". He also tells me walk up revenue from league games has fallen sharply as well.

Perhaps their fans are finally getting sick of plying money into the club for over a year whilst watching the situation getting worse rather than better?

Is 'your source' still of the opinion that Hertz' survival chances are around 6%?
14-11-2013, 01:39 PM
Iggy Pope

Quote:

Originally Posted by EK_Hibs

Is 'your source' still of the opinion that Hertz' survival chances are around 6%?

Is your avatar not just a tad on the homo-erotic side?
14-11-2013, 01:41 PM
Engels74

Not sure what it may mean if anything but Yam golf journo Ewan Murray's just tweeted that Donald Ford and Alex Mackie have resigned from FOH. Bad news coming?

Ewan Murray ‏@mrewanmurray 11m
Alex Mackie and Donald Ford have resigned from the Foundation of Hearts board, as I understand it.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:55 AM.