Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

Loved vlad's direct quotes there. The words Gary Locke thieves and perverts.

Sounds like a good strap line for a yamanagement book: the Romanov years | Gary Locke thieves and perverts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

On the first point, no. UBIG is not a UK company, therefore there is no requirement.

That probably also holds true for the second point, technically, although from the point of view of transparency I agree with you. Their defence, and it's a reasonable one, would be "you're the buyer. You do your homework."

---

Would there not be a right of anybody doing business with HOMFC, giving them extended credit ( I know :rolleyes: ) or providing services, for them to know of circumstances that materially affect that company's ( HOMFC ) future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

They are all different situations.

HMFC were faced with the same as DAFC a few months ago. They were late with PAYE, and had a winding-up order against them. They paid, so HMRC's tactics worked; they are trying the same with DAFC. The investigation settlement is different; HMRC know they will get nothing if they push for immediate payment, so they are hoping to get the money when HMFC are at their most cash-rich.

The RFC situation is, of course, ongoing.

---

You mean cash rich when they receive the transfer money from The Rangers (which they have already received) and have no source of income with it being close season?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

You mean cash rich when they receive the transfer money from The Rangers (which they have already received) and have no source of income with it being close season?

---

I was meaning the season ticket money, which will be rolling in :greengrin

The deal would have been agreed with HMRC before the Rangers money was settled early.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Would there not be a right of anybody doing business with HOMFC, giving them extended credit ( I know :rolleyes: ) or providing services, for them to know of circumstances that materially affect that company's ( HOMFC ) future.

---

There is a moral right, of course, and there are probably specific legal rights as well. However, it's common sense not to buy anything without some sort of background check.

I wouldn't, of course, expect any supporter to do that sort of check.....but they bought the shares on an emotional basis, not a commercial one. A fact that VR knew only too well.

So I've just logged on (it's 7.30 am here in the Demented Dominion) and I was looking for confirmation that they have (or indeed haven't) paid over to us the Derby ticket cash. Anyone got any info on this? Isn't today the deadline?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blindsummit

So I've just logged on (it's 7.30 am here in the Demented Dominion) and I was looking for confirmation that they have (or indeed haven't) paid over to us the Derby ticket cash. Anyone got any info on this? Isn't today the deadline?

---

Wouldnt it be a hoot if we were the ones to push them into administration, hahaha...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

They are all different situations.

HMFC were faced with the same as DAFC a few months ago. They were late with PAYE, and had a winding-up order against them. They paid, so HMRC's tactics worked; they are trying the same with DAFC. The investigation settlement is different; HMRC know they will get nothing if they push for immediate payment, so they are hoping to get the money when HMFC are at their most cash-rich.

The RFC situation is, of course, ongoing.

---

the investigation was for 'tax avoidance' I'm sure on players that earned ridiculous money... and all are historic events that happened, which to me, means any taxes due should be immediately due. How the hell they got a 3 year installment plan, is beyond me. Well, it's obvious, political intervention.

I don't care if they would not have got the money immediately, that's when it should be due!
If they can't pay it, then they should be liquidated.

Will HMRC deal with other businsses like this, that do dodgy dealings and own the government monies?

The sooner these cheats die and get what they deserve, the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig_in_Prague

the investigation was for 'tax avoidance' I'm sure on players that earned ridiculous money... and all are historic events that happened, which to me, means any taxes due should be immediately due. How the hell they got a 3 year installment plan, is beyond me. Well, it's obvious, political intervention.

I don't care if they would not have got the money immediately, that's when it should be due!
If they can't pay it, then they should be liquidated.

Will HMRC deal with other businsses like this, that do dodgy dealings and own the government monies?

The sooner these cheats die and get what they deserve, the better.

---

Sorry i can't agree.

HMRC are commercialy aware , as they should ne. Had they insisted on full payment on completion of the investigation, they would have got nothing ....including the PAYE and VAT for the currentw months. This way, they get that PLUS a stab at the big money .

That is how they.operate these days with most.businesses .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Sorry i can't agree.

HMRC are commercialy aware , as they should ne. Had they insisted on full payment on completion of the investigation, they would have got nothing ....including the PAYE and VAT for the currentw months. This way, they get that PLUS a stab at the big money .

That is how they.operate these days with most.businesses .

---

So why can't they offer Dunfermline to pay over 3 years, a measly 134K?

It is taxes due, so I don't care if they are 'different' circumstances, it's still monies due for past events.
Hearts had a big tax bill and have recieved terribly favourable treatment IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Sorry i can't agree.

HMRC are commercialy aware , as they should ne. Had they insisted on full payment on completion of the investigation, they would have got nothing ....including the PAYE and VAT for the currentw months. This way, they get that PLUS a stab at the big money .

That is how they.operate these days with most.businesses .

---

Think this was a settlement as well, stopped both parties arguing their case (although the onus was on the Yams to prove otherwise). Yams got £300k off the original request for £1.8m and an instalment plan, HMRC got a pledge to pay a £1.5m bill (repayments pending) on a case they might have lost (unlikely but look at Oldco)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

Think this was a settlement as well, stopped both parties arguing their case (although the onus was on the Yams to prove otherwise). Yams got £300k off the original request for £1.8m and an instalment plan, HMRC got a pledge to pay a £1.5m bill (repayments pending) on a case they might have lost (unlikely but look at Oldco)

---

That's right. HMRC was by no means sure of winning the case if it went to a tribunal, and if they had lost they would have got zip (although they would have got it immediately). there was also no precedent to be set as the circumstances were very specific to HoMFC so getting £1.5m (which must be close to the net amount they would have got after costs if they actually won the case) was probably a real result for them, even if it is spread over a number of years. As CWG says HoMFC could also have taken the insolvency route if they had lost the case, and I suspect their representatives threatened to do exactly that, and again HMRC would have incurred the tribunal costs and got sod all at the end of it.

The only down side is that they missed the oppotunity to put the yams out of business.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-20/failed-baltic-bank-raises-risk-of-broken-hearts-1-000-miles-away.html

Pick the bones out this!.. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

That's right. HMRC was by no means sure of winning the case if it went to a tribunal, and if they had lost they would have got zip (although they would have got it immediately). there was also no precedent to be set as the circumstances were very specific to HoMFC so getting £1.5m (which must be close to the net amount they would have got after costs if they actually won the case) was probably a real result for them, even if it is spread over a number of years. As CWG says HoMFC could also have taken the insolvency route if they had lost the case, and I suspect their representatives threatened to do exactly that, and again HMRC would have incurred the tribunal costs and got sod all at the end of it.

The only down side is that they missed the oppotunity to put the yams out of business.

---

Of course thats only true if they actually get the money. If Yams go bust before all payments were made then do HMRC not now just join the list of creditors? I know preferred status changed re employees but not sure where HMRC would be on the ladder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

That's right. HMRC was by no means sure of winning the case if it went to a tribunal, and if they had lost they would have got zip (although they would have got it immediately). there was also no precedent to be set as the circumstances were very specific to HoMFC so getting £1.5m (which must be close to the net amount they would have got after costs if they actually won the case) was probably a real result for them, even if it is spread over a number of years. As CWG says HoMFC could also have taken the insolvency route if they had lost the case, and I suspect their representatives threatened to do exactly that, and again HMRC would have incurred the tribunal costs and got sod all at the end of it.

---

Freakin' loved that line.:top marks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

Of course thats only true if they actually get the money. If Yams go bust before all payments were made then do HMRC not now just join the list of creditors? I know preferred status changed re employees but not sure where HMRC would be on the ladder.

---

You're right, but by deferring the payment HMRC removed the threat of immediate insolvency where they were sure to get nothing and replaced it with at least some chance of getting their money in the future - if they do end up with nothing at least they haven't incurred the costs of the tribunal.

HoMFC are in negative equity so all avaiable funds from an insolvency event would go on the secured debt and the other creditors would get nothing. That's why I can't see a conventional administration working, because they wouldn't be able to CVA their way out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

Of course thats only true if they actually get the money. If Yams go bust before all payments were made then do HMRC not now just join the list of creditors? I know preferred status changed re employees but not sure where HMRC would be on the ladder.

---

As a Hibs fan HMRC have failed me miserably.

As a taxpayer HMRC have arrived at the best solution for the taxpayer. Should HMRC get shafted for their money I will console myself with the winding up order bestowed on HoMFC with no room for manoeuvre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-20/failed-baltic-bank-raises-risk-of-broken-hearts-1-000-miles-away.html

Pick the bones out this!.. ;-)

---

Very interesting article indeed. Seems like some supporters still seem to think that winning two cups was worth the mess Vlad will leave behind, which increasingly looks to me like liquidation eventually. Fools.

Interestingly even FOH seem to recognise that they are deep in the cack and there is no wishful thinking moonbeams solution.

And this thing about being formed a year before us. I know the ****s claim this is true, but isn't it the fact there is no actual documentary proof of this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-20/failed-baltic-bank-raises-risk-of-broken-hearts-1-000-miles-away.html

Pick the bones out this!.. ;-)

---

Refreshing to see a proper news outlet reporting the facts as we've known them for a while instead of the bottle merchants we have in the press in Scotland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajillions

Refreshing to see a proper news outlet reporting the facts as we've known them for a while instead of the bottle merchants we have in the press in Scotland.

---

Yep we really must have one of the worst press ranks in the world with a few notable exceptions. Too busy trying to keep in with their mates and ingratiate themselves to the supposed people in power. Alex Thompson summed them up well, succulent lambs or yams in this case. :greengrin

Quite pathetic really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajillions

Refreshing to see a proper news outlet reporting the facts as we've known them for a while instead of the bottle merchants we have in the press in Scotland.

---

Nice succinct timeline of events soured by letting Czaba Laszlo write his own contribution 'Laszlo said he was fired in early 2010 after 18 months in the job and seven straight victories'. Bit like when he claimed Hibs had never beaten him.:yw:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blindsummit

Very interesting article indeed. Seems like some supporters still seem to think that winning two cups was worth the mess Vlad will leave behind, which increasingly looks to me like liquidation eventually. Fools.

Interestingly even FOH seem to recognise that they are deep in the cack and there is no wishful thinking moonbeams solution.

And this thing about being formed a year before us. I know the ****s claim this is true, but isn't it the fact there is no actual documentary proof of this?

---

Don't know about that but Hearts were suspended from the Scottish Cup by the SFA for two years in the 1880's for fielding ineligible (professional) players. As this was against the rules at the time in doing so they became the first club ever to be suspended.

Same old Yams, always cheating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

As a Hibs fan HMRC have failed me miserably.

As a taxpayer HMRC have arrived at the best solution for the taxpayer. Should HMRC get shafted for their money I will console myself with the winding up order bestowed on HoMFC with no room for manoeuvre.

---

Yup . ....agree with that :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig_in_Prague

So why can't they offer Dunfermline to pay over 3 years, a measly 134K?

It is taxes due, so I don't care if they are 'different' circumstances, it's still monies due for past events.
Hearts had a big tax bill and have recieved terribly favourable treatment IMO.

---

DAFC will have already had the chance to pay by instalment . They gave either refused that or defaulted on it. HMRC don't take such action lightly .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

As a Hibs fan HMRC have failed me miserably.

As a taxpayer HMRC have arrived at the best solution for the taxpayer. Should HMRC get shafted for their money I will console myself with the winding up order bestowed on HoMFC with no room for manoeuvre.

---

Regrettably would largely agree but my gut instinct says Yams will, at best, pay one tax instalment only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blindsummit

Very interesting article indeed. Seems like some supporters still seem to think that winning two cups was worth the mess Vlad will leave behind, which increasingly looks to me like liquidation eventually. Fools.

Interestingly even FOH seem to recognise that they are deep in the cack and there is no wishful thinking moonbeams solution.

And this thing about being formed a year before us. I know the ****s claim this is true, but isn't it the fact there is no actual documentary proof of this?

---

In regards to the yak being formed before us, I think if my memory serves me right - the actual date is a clerical error, it's maybe in Lugton's book I think.
In any event, they will be dead soon and their initial hatching date will be irrelevant.

Romanov has been trying to steal cars :tsk tsk::tsk tsk::tsk tsk::tsk tsk::tsk tsk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUmwJBiqVjU

Why is it takingthem so long to die?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liams

Why is it takingthem so long to die?

---

Because it's "All very complex"

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images.../me_normal.jpgBarry Anderson @BarryAnderson_8
To all those desperate for news that #Hearts players haven't been paid this month: They were paid on time on 16th. Please calm down. #HMFC



Just checked his Mentions on Twitter and from what I can see, he was only asked this once in the last 24 hours. He has however been asked multiple times about Share certificates and hasn't answered a single one.

Strange that Hearts would pay their staff on a Saturday?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liams

Why is it takingthem so long to die?

---

Anything evil takes a while to die. Think of all Freddy/Jason flicks. You have to draw it out a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajillions

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images.../me_normal.jpgBarry Anderson @BarryAnderson_8
To all those desperate for news that #Hearts players haven't been paid this month: They were paid on time on 16th. Please calm down. #HMFC



Just checked his Mentions on Twitter and from what I can see, he was only asked this once. He has however been asked multiple times about Share certificates and hasn't answered a single one.

---

I don't see the fascination about teasing a sports reporter on a minor regional newspaper. He's low down the food chain and unlikely to get much further. Do we really expect him to know anything about business matters or to be allowed to conduct any investigative journalism, let alone be capable of it ?