Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

Just posted some quotes from Keith 'wealth-off-the-radar' Jackson on another thread.

Apparently, the 'inhumane treatment' of Hearts by the SPFL/SFA is as a direct result of the 'bloodlust' last year against his beloved Rangers.


This is more of a rhetorical question but, does anyone think he actually cares about Hearts or is it just another excuse to get a dig in about poor wee Rangers?

---

Poor wee Rangers who immediately resumed spending beyond their means and racking up unsustainable debt as soon as they were granted the opportunity again. Now Hearts want to resume signing players they cannot afford, despite the fact that signing players that they cannot afford played a huge part in getting them to where they are, and in one of the punishments they received.

Yeah, 'Scottish football' is clearly to blame here - and two clubs who ran themselves into the ground trying to crush their rivals are the poor wee victims.

At the moment hearts can't even guarantee their future yet they're trying to sign players? Astonishing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia Na Eir

"And BDO will ask for special dispensation to
sign free agents, with at least two senior
players thought to be willing to join Hearts
for little recompense"

oh. I wonder who one of them would be? !!!

---

Who??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermit Crab

Who??

---

the 1 wi the big conk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermit Crab

Who??

---

Sir Rudolph of Gorgie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BarneyK

Sir Rudolph of Gorgie?

---

He's playing for Alloa. They can't sign him just now anyway.

Just had a look across the road. The "poor wee us" attitude still prevails, right down to the 'it wisnae us, a big bad Lith done it and ran away'.

I wish I could write it off as thick wee boys who get everything they ask mummy for, but my brother-in-law is a senior partner in a law firm and has a lot of the same attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermit Crab

He's playing for Alloa. They can sign him just now anyway.

---

I don't think he has signed for Alloa yet has he? And what do you mean by they could sign him now anyway? They can't register anyone, out of contract, free or otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermit Crab

He's playing for Alloa. They can sign him just now anyway.

---

I know they can't sign him but that's the whole point of their meeting today, to ride roughshod over certain previous embargos. Has he actually signed for Alloa? Last I heard they were just talking about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy74

I don't think he has signed for Alloa yet has he? And what do you mean by they could sign him now anyway? They can't register anyone, out of contract, free or otherwise.

---

Sorry that's a typo I meant they can't sign him now anyway.

Surely if the admin rules are bent slightly to allow signings, they will still be bound by the punishment they recieved of only being able to sign under 21s until the first of Feb??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia Na Eir

"And BDO will ask for special dispensation to
sign free agents, with at least two senior
players thought to be willing to join Hearts
for little recompense"

oh. I wonder who one of them would be? !!!

---

Looking at the committee members who are adjudicating :

Ralph Topping (Hibs fan) - on record as wanting clubs to live within their means.

Stephen Thompson (Dundee United owner) - his club were put out a domestic cup last year on penalties, by Hearts, a club paying players with money they didn't have in the end, thus depriving his club, which is in debt, of potential money from a semi/final/win.

Celtic's Eric Riley - Hearts put Celtic out of the Scottish Cup in 2012 - we know how 'Tic like their cups.

Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen) - they argue they are Scottish football's 'third force' - they will argue that their position has been undermined by a club paying players (or not) that they couldn't afford thus depriving them of top 6 football etc.

Les Gray - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18751486 say no more

Mike Mulraney (Alloa) - self interest alone would dictate that Mike would want Hearts in the Championship next season for gate money, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BarneyK

I know they can't sign him but that's the whole point of their meeting today, to ride roughshod over certain previous embargos. Has he actually signed for Alloa? Last I heard they were just talking about it.

---

Hmmm just checked match report and he wasn't in the squad. I wonder if they lift the ban that skacel will just happen to be in the hearts shop when he gets the call.

They're just not good enough...We knew that anyway, but thanks for the article anyway Michael.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...ality.23160780

Just noticed that Dylan McGowan is 22!

I'd assumed he was a kid being chucked in. Paul Hanlon is 23.

Shows they are just bad players, not really young ones.

Did we bring on three 19 year olds as subs the other night?

So they want to lift the sanctions as we jamey is getting humped every week and it's bad for their mental health !, but how can this be as Mr Bathgate said this in the Hootsman this morning
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...side-1-3265780
To save you trawling through this crap the gist of it is they are "forging a solid side " and he goes on to say " a modest recovery has begun ". So sounds like no need to lift the ban anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GordonHFC

Love the quote this morning in the Scotsman. "If the scottish premiership were the solar system then Hearts would be somewhere beyond Pluto".

---

I think they would be more like Saturn - everyone is running rings round them.

The 'Devil within me' wouldn't mind if the SPFL gave them some sort of leeway today - as then the 'The Rangers' would go ballistic and then, in their usual sycophantic way of siding with 'All things Hun', the Scottish 'Media' would immediately change their stance/opinion on how Hearts are being treated. Just now it's sickening how they're being portrayed - almost as if they haven't cheated at all !!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AltheHibby

Just had a look across the road. The "poor wee us" attitude still prevails, right down to the 'it wisnae us, a big bad Lith done it and ran away'.

I wish I could write it off as thick wee boys who get everything they ask mummy for, but my brother-in-law is a senior partner in a law firm and has a lot of the same attitude.

---

The irony is that if you look at some of the other threads there's the same folk saying it was all worth it. They should stick to what they do best, stealing from charities and incest. Absolute non entities the lot of them, the sooner they're wiped of the face of the earth the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zondervan

And more drivel from Keith Jackson:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...hearts-3015628

"IS the treatment of Hearts fair? Absolutely not. Must it continue unabated and without mercy? Sadly, there can be no other way. What we are currently witnessing at Tynecastle is unedifying, bordering on inhumane".

The last sentence above is simply hysteria, the man needs a straight-jacket!

---

Quote:

---

Had level heads been applied to the financial meltdown at Ibrox then Rangers would have been helped back up from the gutter in which Craig Whyte left them ...

---

Whyte's dodgy, but singling him out for the mess the huns were/are in is pushing it a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peevemor

Whyte's dodgy, but singling him out for the mess the huns were/are in is pushing it a bit.

---

But that is what suits the media's agenda. Blame Whyte and Romanov and conveniently sweep the mess that went on before them under the carpet. Murray has never been called to account about his role in Rangers downfall and the spending under The pieman and FTB is never mentioned. Jackson is just spinning the usual bull****

The most annoying thing about 20pointsback? They still portray this thread and similar ones as hibbies in alice in wonderland.

To any yams looking in;

It's real, ya thick yams. This thread has been bang on from day 1 whilst you no-marks have had your collective head in the sand.

Romanov (**** the Mr, you tits) walked off the "project" (project ... you ****ing idiots); you're in admin; you're relegated.

Tell me where the thread went wrong? Fannies.

Frankie Boyle's cartoon: Hertz injury crises :faf:


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bd3Gm_0CUAEDiG6.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAVE1875

Frankie Boyle's cartoon: Hertz injury crises :faf:


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bd3Gm_0CUAEDiG6.jpg

---

Is that a pish stain? Sure it is ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/footbal...medium=twitter Another appeal to be considered today, according to that link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAVE1875

Frankie Boyle's cartoon: Hertz injury crises :faf:


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bd3Gm_0CUAEDiG6.jpg

---

The yams have already published a 14k+ crowd for that cartoon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenpaper55

So they want to lift the sanctions as we jamey is getting humped every week and it's bad for their mental health !, but how can this be as Mr Bathgate said this in the Hootsman this morning http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...side-1-3265780 To save you trawling through this crap the gist of it is they are "forging a solid side " and he goes on to say " a modest recovery has begun ". So sounds like no need to lift the ban anytime soon.

---

A modest recovery? Whit? Still getting zero points from a game and still being on the charge to zero half way through Jan is a recovery is it? If so long may it continue!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truehibernian

That's exactly what it is - hysterical :agree:


Ewan Murray being 'appalled' at the way Billy Brown was spoken to on the radio - come on Ewan, there are greater things in life to be 'appalled' at - and in the context of the radio show, Billy was given a forum to vent his spleen. His latest rant in The Guardian is nothing more than a 'shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted' piece - smothered with arrogant Hearts supporting angst and self pity (as are his replies to fair comments).

Jackson - the Record are struggling for readership numbers so it's only par for the course that he jumps on the media bandwagon of seeing Locke and Hearts as 'victims'. It's like the debt crisis and folk saying 'I didn't mean to rack up all this debt and go on two holidays a year and buy expensive cars, but they kept increasing my credit limit, what else was I to do' - maybe one day the penny will drop and media will report that there is a responsibility and an accountabilty that comes with everyday finance and housekeeping - if you aint got the money, don't spend it - if you overspend and cannot pay it back, there are penalties. Simple as that.

Go down to any public park in Edinburgh, coach any kids who play for teams, you'll hear of young school kids playing up to 3 games a week on occasion, or training every day if at an academy, nights with their club, school football teams - do you hear parents moaning about 'health and safety' of the kids ?

Smokescreen - that is what it is, pure and simple. It's a tough league, a hard league and a physical league - but these 'youngsters' were given professional contracts and were deemed good enough to become pro footballers. Every single SPL side, bar Celtic, are fielding teenagers and very early 20's footballers. Every side.

BDO decided who to get rid of when they came in - Hearts released experienced players like Barr, Sutton, Taoull, Webster, Zaliukas, etc - you'd need to look at the books of course but I'm convinced they could have retained at least 2 of these players as well as keeping McDonald, Stevenson and Hamill.

Maybe BDO and Southern should be under far more scrutiny from the media, not Locke and his 'boys'.

---

Some great points there TH, but to concentrate on the bold bit and put a bit of context on it, in the seven seasons that 'Mr Romanov' was in charge Hearts spent over £53m more than they brought in (excluding player purchases). That money came from the creditors of HoMFC, UBIG and Ukio and none of it will be paid back. For an average annual turnover of about £8m that is disgraceful, and I haven't even taken into account the share and season ticket scams of the last two years. In the same period Hibs brought in nearly £10m more than they spent and used the money to honour their debts and secure the club's future by consolidating the asset base, all from a slightly lower average annual turnover.

If that's not financial doping nothing is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deansy

The 'Devil within me' wouldn't mind if the SPFL gave them some sort of leeway today - as then the 'The Rangers' would go ballistic and then, in their usual sycophantic way of siding with 'All things Hun', the Scottish 'Media' would immediately change their stance/opinion on how Hearts are being treated. Just now it's sickening how they're being portrayed - almost as if they haven't cheated at all !!!

---

Sadly, don't see that happening. More likely the SPFL will be portrayed as the Devil's Spawn and reminded how they "threw The Rangers out of the SPL". SPFL will be put under increased pressure by media and Hun-Loving politicians/business folk to do some favours for Sevco too - just to balance the books.

SPFL would be opening a whole can of worms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Onion

Sadly, don't see that happening. More likely the SPFL will be portrayed as the Devil's Spawn and reminded how they "threw The Rangers out of the SPL". SPFL will be put under increased pressure by media and Hun-Loving politicians/business folk to do some favours for Sevco too - just to balance the books.

SPFL would be opening a whole can of worms.

---

I agree! Would be good if posts had a 'like button' :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Some great points there TH, but to concentrate on the bold bit and put a bit of context on it, in the seven seasons that 'Mr Romanov' was in charge Hearts spent over £53m more than they brought in (excluding player purchases). That money came from the creditors of HoMFC, UBIG and Ukio and none of it will be paid back. For an average annual turnover of about £8m that is disgraceful, and I haven't even taken into account the share and season ticket scams of the last two years. In the same period Hibs brought in nearly £10m more than they spent and used the money to honour their debts and secure the club's future by consolidating the asset base, all from a slightly lower average annual turnover.

If that's not financial doping nothing is.

---

That's as good a summary of the two clubs financial positions I've seen :top marks IMHO, there's only one reason no paper or journalist has decided to explore this blatant financial doping case.. and that's sales & circulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

At the moment hearts can't even guarantee their future yet they're trying to sign players? Astonishing.

---

Seeing at they have this spare money it must feel pretty rank for the creditors/charities they stole from to not even be considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

They're just not good enough...We knew that anyway, but thanks for the article anyway Michael.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...ality.23160780

---

Nailed :agree: http://i42.tinypic.com/2nbvuy0.gif

Quote:

---

Fatigue just a tired excuse for side shorn of any quality

---

They're just pish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Some great points there TH, but to concentrate on the bold bit and put a bit of context on it, in the seven seasons that 'Mr Romanov' was in charge Hearts spent over £53m more than they brought in (excluding player purchases). That money came from the creditors of HoMFC, UBIG and Ukio and none of it will be paid back. For an average annual turnover of about £8m that is disgraceful, and I haven't even taken into account the share and season ticket scams of the last two years. In the same period Hibs brought in nearly £10m more than they spent and used the money to honour their debts and secure the club's future by consolidating the asset base, all from a slightly lower average annual turnover.

If that's not financial doping nothing is.

---

You've summed up the situation extremely well there, CG. I'd be delighted if you would forward that to the DR et al.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Some great points there TH, but to concentrate on the bold bit and put a bit of context on it, in the seven seasons that 'Mr Romanov' was in charge Hearts spent over £53m more than they brought in (excluding player purchases). That money came from the creditors of HoMFC, UBIG and Ukio and none of it will be paid back. For an average annual turnover of about £8m that is disgraceful, and I haven't even taken into account the share and season ticket scams of the last two years. In the same period Hibs brought in nearly £10m more than they spent and used the money to honour their debts and secure the club's future by consolidating the asset base, all from a slightly lower average annual turnover.

If that's not financial doping nothing is.

---

To that £53m you could add the wages (allegedly) paid in Lithuania to some of the 70 strong squad rather than going through HOMFC's books....
:cb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truehibernian

Looking at the committee members who are adjudicating :

Ralph Topping (Hibs fan) - on record as wanting clubs to live within their means.

Stephen Thompson (Dundee United owner) - his club were put out a domestic cup last year on penalties, by Hearts, a club paying players with money they didn't have in the end, thus depriving his club, which is in debt, of potential money from a semi/final/win.

Celtic's Eric Riley - Hearts put Celtic out of the Scottish Cup in 2012 - we know how 'Tic like their cups.

Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen) - they argue they are Scottish football's 'third force' - they will argue that their position has been undermined by a club paying players (or not) that they couldn't afford thus depriving them of top 6 football etc.

Les Gray - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18751486 say no more

Mike Mulraney (Alloa) - self interest alone would dictate that Mike would want Hearts in the Championship next season for gate money, etc.

---

The EEN now even quoting a rule number..........


The SPFL were due to meet today to discuss the matter during a board meeting, however they are certain to refuse to lift the embargo. The only consolation for Hearts could lie in League rule E16.1, which states that a club in administration can apply to register a new player to replace a departing player. The SPFL board would judge any such request on a case-by-case basis.

IMO the odds are now shortening on Hearts signing a new player in this window before us.

Deary deary me...don't they ever take their heads out of their jacksies?

Enjoy....

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index....lling-to-join/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

The EEN now even quoting a rule number..........


The SPFL were due to meet today to discuss the matter during a board meeting, however they are certain to refuse to lift the embargo. The only consolation for Hearts could lie in League rule E16.1, which states that a club in administration can apply to register a new player to replace a departing player. The SPFL board would judge any such request on a case-by-case basis.

IMO the odds are now shortening on Hearts signing a new player in this window before us.

---

That rule has been known about and agree it will be allowed on a case by case basis only .so if the sell on an under 21 player who doesn't then get loaned back to them then fair enough sign an under 21 player to replace him .Like for Like .However don't let them sign an experienced player.even if they kid us on they are playing for nothing . No doubt hearts will say they can't get a like for like player in and that's where they will be looking to bend the rule ie cheat further .It shouldn't be ,and won't be ,allowed to Happen .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronniekirk

That rule has been known about and agree it will be allowed on a case by case basis only .so if the sell on an under 21 player who doesn't then get loaned back to them then fair enough sign an under 21 player to replace him .Like for Like .However don't let them sign an experienced player.even if they kid us on they are playing for nothing . No doubt hearts will say they can't get a like for like player in and that's where they will be looking to bend the rule ie cheat further .It shouldn't be ,and won't be ,allowed to Happen .

---

First time I 've heard this rule mentioned. Previously it had only been stated tha a club could sign a player only in 'exceptional circumstances' on a case by case basis.

Let's face it in terms of window signings 'one in one out' is pretty much what most clubs do anyway so is that not effectively lifting the ban?:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HIBERNIAN-0762

Deary deary me...don't they ever take their heads out of their jacksies?

Enjoy....
http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index....lling-to-join/

---

Just looked at it The avatar on Purfleet. Sums it up continuing to make Tits of themselves Big style.:na na:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GordonHFC

Love the quote this morning in the Scotsman. "If the scottish premiership were the solar system then Hearts would be somewhere beyond Pluto".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peevemor

Does that mean that they've become Mickey Mouse?

---

Uranus, surely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

First time I 've heard this rule mentioned. Previously it had only been stated tha a club could sign a player only in 'exceptional circumstances' on a case by case basis.

Let's face it in terms of window signings 'one in one out' is pretty much what most clubs do anyway so is that not effectively lifting the ban?:confused:

---

It's the exceptional case bit that they are pushing So think with injuries piling up they might get go ahead on that basis but only if they sell a player and are struggling to have a full bench which they have not had on a few occasions . if they weren't going to allow something why let them go back in first place and waste everyone's time It said they were going back after consultation with someone at Hampden . Unless of course it was someone with Hibs connection winding them up .Now there a thought

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronniekirk

Just looked at it The avatar on Purfleet. Sums it up continuing to make Tits of themselves Big style.:na na:

---

:drool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

The EEN now even quoting a rule number..........


The SPFL were due to meet today to discuss the matter during a board meeting, however they are certain to refuse to lift the embargo. The only consolation for Hearts could lie in League rule E16.1, which states that a club in administration can apply to register a new player to replace a departing player. The SPFL board would judge any such request on a case-by-case basis.

IMO the odds are now shortening on Hearts signing a new player in this window before us.

---

The full rule is:

Quote:

---

E16

Except with the consent of the Board and that only where the Board is in its sole
discretion satisfied that:

E16.1
the term of a Player’s contract of service with his Club has expired and
such contract has not been renewed or extended or such a contract has
terminated with the mutual consent in writing of the Club and the Player
concerned and, in either case, the Registration of such Player with the
League in terms of the player Registration, Transfer and Contract
Regulations has been cancelled and a replacement Player is sought to be
registered to replace the Player whose contract has so expired or been
terminated; or

E16.2
where the Player sought to be registered is a temporary replacement for a
goalkeeper who is unable by reason of injury or illness to play and that
only where written confirmation of such inability shall have been obtained
by the Club from a qualified medical practitioner and submitted to the
Board and the Board is satisfied that the Club concerned has no other
goalkeeper who is registered and able to play, and

E16.3
in either case the board is satisfied that notwithstanding the Insolvency
Event it is appropriate that the club concerned be permitted to Register
the player sought to be Registered,


where a Club has taken, suffered or has been subject to an Insolvency Event or
Events or a Group Undertaking of a Club has taken, suffered or has been subject to
an Insolvency Event or Events and the Board has determined that Rule E6
shall apply, that Club shall not be entitled or permitted to register any Player with the
League and the League shall not register such a Player until the Board is satisfied
that such Insolvency Event or events shall no longer continue or subsist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronniekirk

It's the exceptional case bit that they are pushing So think with injuries piling up they might get go ahead on that basis but only if they sell a player and are struggling to have a full bench which they have not had on a few occasions . if they weren't going to allow something why let them go back in first place and waste everyone's time It said they were going back after consultation with someone at Hampden . Unless of course it was someone with Hibs connection winding them up .Now there a thought

---

Exceptional circumstances have only applied before when a team are without a recognised goalkeeper due to injury. They are then allowed to sign a keeper on a short term loan. Having 38 registered professional footballers I doubt HoMFC will meet the exceptional circumstances criteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

The full rule is:

---

E16.1
the term of a Player’s contract of service with his Club has expired and
such contract has not been renewed or extended or such a contract has
terminated with the mutual consent in writing of the Club and the Player
concerned and, in either case, the Registration of such Player with the
League in terms of the player Registration, Transfer and Contract
Regulations has been cancelled and a replacement Player is sought to be
registered to replace the Player whose contract has so expired or been
terminated

Usual legales to wade through bit in a nutshell is it if they sell a player or terminate a contract they can bring a player in? Surely if it's that easy to get round the embargo what are they bleating about. Or,is this section relevent to a whole different scenario?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

Exceptional circumstances have only applied before when a team are without end to appt a recognised goalkeeper due to injury. They are then allowed to sign a keeper on a short term loan. Having 38 registered professional footballers I doubt HoMFC will meet the exceptional circumstances criteria.

---

Tend to agree in which case whole thing was futile and why waste peoples time :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

First time I 've heard this rule mentioned. Previously it had only been stated tha a club could sign a player only in 'exceptional circumstances' on a case by case basis.

Let's face it in terms of window signings 'one in one out' is pretty much what most clubs do anyway so is that not effectively lifting the ban?:confused:

---

Exactly. The Yams have shown through their disgraceful management that they have no respect for the normal rules of business. Their years of financial doping has brought the club to its knees and it now needs to accept that those days are well and truly over. They are no longer a "Big Club" with big ambitions. Nor do they deserve to sit at the top table. They should be concentrating on their survival and life in the lower leagues. The fact that they have been allowed a year in the SPFL under Administration has been shown to be overly generous. They should have been relegated last year - for their own good and the good of the SPFL. Only those clubs who have and continue to run their businesses in a prudent and responsible way should be allowed trade normally. The Yams should be told to shove it, and be thankful that the authorities did not strip them of titles/trophies or fine them heavily !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronniekirk

Tend to agree in which case whole thing was futile and why waste peoples time :confused:

---

It gives them someone else to blame for the **** they are in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

E16.1
the term of a Player’s contract of service with his Club has expired and
such contract has not been renewed or extended or such a contract has
terminated with the mutual consent in writing of the Club and the Player
concerned and, in either case, the Registration of such Player with the
League in terms of the player Registration, Transfer and Contract
Regulations has been cancelled and a replacement Player is sought to be
registered to replace the Player whose contract has so expired or been
terminated

Usual legales to wade through bit in a nutshell is it if they sell a player or terminate a contract they can bring a player in? Surely if it's that easy to get round the embargo what are they bleating about. Or,is this section relevent to a whole different scenario?

---

Thanks for clarifying that rule but yes begs question why do they need to go to a hearing to get what's already legislated for Think it must be they are trying to argue exceptional circumstances could be something along the lines of Most weeks we are P--- ,but some other weeks circumstances mean we are exceptionally P---. Help !!!!!!!

If Hearts are so concerned for player safety, then why did they not exercise the option available to every club of taking a 2 week break in January?

If I understood correctly, I thought there is an embargo from the SPFL for entering administration which lasts until administration is exited and another embargo from the SFA lasting until 1st February for the non payment of wages. So, even if the the SPFL agree to their appeal then the SFA ban still exists for this transfer window.

However, it's perfectly possible that I'm mistaken !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haagsehibby

If I understood correctly, I thought there is an embargo from the SPFL for entering administration which lasts until administration is exited and another embargo from the SFA lasting until 1st February for the non payment of wages. So, even if the the SPFL agree to their appeal then the SFA ban still exists for this transfer window.

However, it's perfectly possible that I'm mistaken !

---

Yeah but all the players they will want to sign will be available Feb 1st.

So, when do we find out whether they've been told to shut up and man up or whether the powers-that-be have folded to the media pressure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HibeeMG

So, when do we find out whether they've been told to shut up and man up or whether the powers-that-be have folded to the media pressure?

---

This on JKB

Quote:

---

View PostDannie Boy, on 13 January 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:
Ban lifted in February no conformation yet but will up date when I can.

---

That will relate to the SFA ban which ends on 1st February surely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winston Ingram

This on JKB

---

Is the poor wee flower no getting a bit confuddled?

The ban for non-payment of wages ends at the beginning of February. The administration one carries on until they exit administration.

I know you know this. That was purely for any lurking Yams. :sofa:

Euan McLean ‏@Euanmc1 7m SPFL announcement on Hearts imminent. Assured the meeting is almost concluded.
Retweeted by George Foulkes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HibeeMG

Is the poor wee flower no getting a bit confuddled?

The ban for non-payment of wages ends at the beginning of February. The administration one carries on until they exit administration.

I know you know this. That was purely for any lurking Yams. :sofa:

---

I think both relate to administration.

The embargo whilst in it is automatic. The other was a punishment which was given to them for entering administration. It could have been a fine or a further embargo.

I think the non payment of wages was never actually addressed sentence wise this time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21061338


Lucky *******s. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21061338


Lucky *******s. :wink:

---

:faf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21061338


Lucky *******s. :wink:

---

You are a bad man! :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21061338


Lucky *******s. :wink:

---

Very good. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy74

I think both relate to administration.

The embargo whilst in it is automatic. The other was a punishment which was given to them for entering administration. It could have been a fine or a further embargo.

I think the non payment of wages was never actually addressed sentence wise this time.

---

From the time:

Hearts have been issued with a new registration embargo for going into administration.


A Scottish Football Association judicial panel has imposed a ban on the club signing new players aged 21 and over until February 1 next year.

The club cannot sign any player at the moment because of an automatic registration embargo which kicked in when they went into administration on June 19 under what were then Scottish Premier League rules.

Hearts, whose true debt was yesterday revealed as almost £29million, have escaped a monetary punishment.

But their extended transfer ban will be a blow to manager Gary Locke, who only has two outfield players aged over 21.

Hearts were also hit with an automatic 15-point penalty in June and Locke will be unable to immediately bring in experienced players if the club exits administration before the end of the January transfer window.

Joint-administrator Trevor Birch, who attended the judicial panel hearing at Hampden, was disappointed with the added sanction.

In a statement, he said: “The decision to impose a transfer embargo on players over 21 until the end of January is disappointing.

“Whilst I appreciate that the SFA rules state that clubs in administration will face sanctions, Hearts have already had a points deduction and player embargo - and it feels like we’re being penalised twice.

“That said, these are the cards that we’ve been dealt and we’ll now just have to get on with it.

“At least the decision gives us clarity and means that the bidders can move forward and focus their attention on refining their proposals rather than worrying about possible sanctions.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21061338


Lucky *******s. :wink:

---

:greengrin :greengrin

Nearly had me.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21061338


Lucky *******s. :wink:

---

Hope they get in there quick - Trudi will be a year younger - win/win for the big team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21061338


Lucky *******s. :wink:

---

Hearts Manager John McGlynn...................is this a spoof site?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskyhibby

Hearts Manager John McGlynn...................is this a spoof site?

---

There's a clue in the date :wink:

Yer a bad man G :tee hee:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamig

There's a clue in the date :wink:

---

Yep just saw that too..........naughty boy........:greengrin

Blackpool,

You are a total, total £$%^&*(

My company laptop nearly got flying lessons!!

Good one my man. :thumbsup:

Very good! Been refreshing for the last hour and this had me going. :not worth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangermouse

That will relate to the SFA ban which ends on 1st February surely?

---

That ends in Feb anyway. That punishment has been shown to be totally irrelavant, however, as they will not be out of admin by then.

They should consider a punishment now that actually means something. :greengrin

@Euanmc1: Hearts transfer embargo not discussed by SPFL Board! Embargo stands.

@Euanmc1: Hearts transfer embargo not discussed by SPFL Board! Embargo stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskyhibby

Hearts Manager John McGlynn...................is this a spoof site?

---

:hmmm:

Hahahahaha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zondervan

@Euanmc1: Hearts transfer embargo not discussed by SPFL Board! Embargo stands.

---

Ehhhhhhhh?:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CapitalGreen

@Euanmc1: Hearts transfer embargo not discussed by SPFL Board! Embargo stands.

---

and quite right as well :agree: now STFU yamboids and finally act with just a tiny little bit of dignity, infact...hit them with a fine for wasting everyones time, payable after exiting admin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zondervan

@Euanmc1: Hearts transfer embargo not discussed by SPFL Board! Embargo stands.

---

Pleasing.

Attachment 11780

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Ehhhhhhhh?:confused:

---

I think its because its a rule - it is automatic and not a punishment/sanction. For it to be changed it would mean a rule change which would need to be proposed and voted on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zondervan

@Euanmc1: Hearts transfer embargo not discussed by SPFL Board! Embargo stands.

---

The fudge is still available................

Euan McLean (@Euanmc1)
13/01/2014 17:10
But individual cases can be considered if hearts approach them to register a player on a like for like basis.

........................and so it drags on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

The fudge is still available................

Euan McLean (@Euanmc1)
13/01/2014 17:10
But individual cases can be considered if hearts approach them to register a player on a like for like basis.

........................and so it drags on.

---

But that's always been there anyway.

So what's like for like , who decides what level a player is if you want to replace him ?.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamig

But that's always been there anyway.

---

correct. no change!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenpaper55

So what's like for like , who decides what level a player is if you want to replace him ?.

---

The SPFL board.

Quote:

---

The current SPFL Board is made up of Neil Doncaster (CEO), Ralph Topping (Chairman), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen), Les Gray (Hamilton Academical), Mike Mulraney (Alloa Athletic) and Bill Darroch (Stenhousemuir).

---

The seethe on 20pointsback is pleasing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nribs

The seethe on 20pointsback is pleasing

---

Well they better get used to seething :greengrin

Scottish Football should realise HOMFC just cannot be trusted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21061338

After this relaxation of the ban the yams signed 2 Liverpool players on loan, both of who played and contributed to the Inverness semi defeat. Of course Liverpool were never paid the fee for the contribution Hearts had agreed to make to their wages and ended up on the creditors list for £ 46,625.00.

Get a ban for failure to make payments on time, and first thing they do when its lifted is break the rules again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

The SPFL board.

---

They will be getting no favours. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nribs

The seethe on 20pointsback is pleasing

---

What about this belter:

"time to play a team full of 15 year olds stuff the spfl lets embarrass the league"



The shame of it all, personally I think I'd need to turn my back on Scottish Football.

Over the road they are saying "Right, now lets play the 15 year olds and embarrass the league".

Think this means they think by fielding a team of 15 years olds and said 15 year olds getting pumped by cricket scores will embarrass the other teams.

Think the record books would show that the embarrassment of a serious of heavy defeats would be all HOMFC's!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875

and quite right as well :agree: now STFU yamboids and finally act with just a tiny little bit of dignity, infact...hit them with a fine for wasting everyones time, payable after exiting admin

---

As above I'd argue they should be reviewing the SFA punishment again.

Instead of a fine or extended ban they got one that falls away on 1 Feb.

Pointless as they will not be out of admin anyaway so they really haven't had an SFA punishment for being in admin.

If Ryan Stevenson resorts to type and leaves the ship as it's sinking, then I'm quite happy for them to sign The Big Nosed Barman in a 'like for like' :aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Sea-gull

Over the road they are saying "Right, now lets play the 15 year olds and embarrass the league".

Think this means they think by fielding a team of 15 years olds and said 15 year olds getting pumped by cricket scores will embarrass the other teams.

Think the record books would show that the embarrassment of a serious of heavy defeats would be all HOMFC's!

---

They aren't allowed to play 15 year olds. They would be getting another punishment for that!

Oh, and no one cares about what type of scores people can now get against Hearts. All of their own doing. They can't afford any other players so the 'punishments' are having no more effect than their own situation has got them to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

What about this belter:

"time to play a team full of 15 year olds stuff the spfl lets embarrass the league"



The shame of it all, personally I think I'd need to turn my back on Scottish Football.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Sea-gull

Over the road they are saying "Right, now lets play the 15 year olds and embarrass the league".

Think this means they think by fielding a team of 15 years olds and said 15 year olds getting pumped by cricket scores will embarrass the other teams.

Think the record books would show that the embarrassment of a serious of heavy defeats would be all HOMFC's!

---

Idiots.

If that was possible, which it's not because players must be 16 to play in the SPFL, how do they think they senior players would react?

"Sure, I don't mind if you ruin any chance I have of a move elsewhere".

"I get enough wages as it is. I don't need the appearance money".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Sea-gull

Over the road they are saying "Right, now lets play the 15 year olds and embarrass the league".

Think this means they think by fielding a team of 15 years olds and said 15 year olds getting pumped by cricket scores will embarrass the other teams.

Think the record books would show that the embarrassment of a serious of heavy defeats would be all HOMFC's!

---

Obviously they'd actually have to be 16 but ... yes please! :aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Sea-gull

Over the road they are saying "Right, now lets play the 15 year olds and embarrass the league".

Think this means they think by fielding a team of 15 years olds and said 15 year olds getting pumped by cricket scores will embarrass the other teams.

Think the record books would show that the embarrassment of a serious of heavy defeats would be all HOMFC's!

---

Hmmm interesting... do they actually have any 15 year olds in their 1st team squad of 25 playesr? :cb

Sounds hell of a lot like grooming to me