Printable View
Now that would be funny. Then a helicopter to the centre circle at the Wee Pink Wonga Dome, quaffing the best champagne with a chick on each arm. Meanwhile the tramps are raiding their bairns piggy banks to keep their beloved club alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...v-buys-1096179Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
Credit where it's due - HMRC are having an absolute stormer this year.
I'll believe this when I see it.
There's been so many false dawns before to believe that this will actually happen and so many rumours that they were going to the wall and going into administration etc.
If HMRC win the case against them, I might start to believe that they are finished but until then all we can really do is get the prayer mats out. :pray:
FTH :giruy:
If that is the case then why have the auditors been signing off the accounts for a clearly insolvent company for the last four years?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Does the implicit support that UBIG have been giving Hearts bear no liability (apart from the initial purchase price and all theose debt for equity exchanges)?
They could do that but it would depend on turning HoMFC into a business that makes enough cash profit to service the rent and if that was a possibility they would be better taking the £1.75m hit and just doing it. The more the external debt increases the more likely (or less unlikely) administration becomes, but I think it's a long way from being viable right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
You're right, I was overlooking the floating charge. I would think though, that administration (as opposed to liquidation) would look to keep as many of the assets as possible and seek fresh investment to pay off the creditors - the secured creditors still wouldn't have a vote in the CVA, and even if the assets were all sold that would reduce UBIG's voting power in a CVA proposal.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
100 pager this.
This always irks me a bit. Everything I've posted on this subject has been based on a genuine analysis of their situation using my professional knowledge and experience - it has never just been wishful thinking. I've also always tried to explain the reasons behind my comments as clearly as I could. The one and only factor that has kept HoMFC going has been Romanov's willingness to throw money at them for far longer than I or many others expected. He has made it very clear that that has now stopped and I can't see any form of rescue for them unless he changes his mind. I'll happily debate the possibilities with anyone who can offer a reasonable argument, but "we've heard it all before" just won't do.Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibee
I realise that it's been going on for years, but every incident has had subtle differences from the previous one that suggested they were getting closer and closer to the S-trap and this looks like the worst so far. If you think it's not going to happen then give us good reasons why you think that.
BTW that wasn't a direct go at you FH - I don't think you usually post that sort of comment.
More funny Yam doom.
http://m.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/s...plan-1-2603507
The audit report carries a very significant qualification. It refers to UBIG's commitment to provide sufficient future funding, but states that the auditors have been unable to verify whether UBIG was in a position to provide that funding. Tha accounting policy note also says that the directors have written confirmation from UBIG that it would provide funding for the foreseeable future. The foreseeable future is generally accepted as meaning 12 months from the date of signing the accounts so UBIG might arguably have some liability for debts incurred up to 5 April 2013. However, if UBIG has subsequently advised the directors that the funding was being withdrawn then any debts incurred since that notice would have been incurred recklessly by the directors and it would more likely be their personal liability. It would be up to a court to decide though.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
I am not sure of the points you are making.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
1. Cav has covered the question of the audit report.
2. The support that UBIG have been giving Hearts does bear a liability. The liability is the risk that UBIG will not recover the money that they have invested.
A wee word of advice to everyone. Pay attention to what CG, CWG and PTS have to say on the subject :wink:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
The way I could see it work for the Liths would be this,
Enter administration with their own version of the Duffers appointed, UBIG Mark 2 offers to buy the HOMFC assets for a sum way over any other consortium might offer, but less than UBIG Mark 1 has security for.
Ownership is transferred to UBIG Mark 2, and cash to Mark 1, Leaving UBIG with the assets at no cost and the other creditors mainly HMRC with nowt.
Bit of a Baldrick type plan, and a lot of work to dump a circa £ 3 million debt I know.
Think you're spot on and the bit in bold is very much the key point. Exactly what kind of doom the Yams end up with is still very much down to Vlad's whims. Although he's stopped pumping money in at insane levels, he has still been willing to write off huge chunks of debt. If his exit was done in a Yam friendly way, writing off the bulk of the remaining debt and allowing them to keep Tiny, they could still come out relatively unscathed, albeit they'd have to return to the real world. However, if that was his plan why hasn't he done it already? At the other extreme, he could get fed up, pull the plug and they'd be toast. I suspect the outcome will be somewhere in the middle. Hearts continue with most of the debt gone but as tenants in their own midden, still clinging to a council super stadium as the way out of their troubles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I can understand the plan and the higher the external debt the more viable it becomes but it supposes that UBIG want to keep the money lavvy that is Heart of Midlothian plc. Every indication is that they want rid but can't find someone daft enough to buy it so right now a straight liquidation would be a better business move than administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
I posted on the pm board that my best bet had been that he would keep them going in gradual decline but that changed when this share offer came up. Mikey summarised my lengthy comments into "It's a donation" earlier in the thread and he was spot on - Mr Romanov has got the begging bowl out because it would appear that he doesn't want to give HoMFC anything at all. £1.79m isn't going to go far even if they avoid this tax liability and they're already talking about another share issue next year. It has all the hallmarks of panic management and even if it does work this time future share issues are bound to produce diminishing returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Yeah, but thats what happens when the loan sharks get their claws into you, they keep coming back for more, and more_ _ _ :greengrin
Apologies if it's already been answered in the thread - but is the share offer a sale of existing shares or a new issue which would dilute the existing holdings ?
It's new shares.Quote:
Originally Posted by haagsehibby
I read it as 10% of existing shares.Quote:
Originally Posted by haagsehibby
I stand corrected. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Cav beat me to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by haagsehibby
If it were existing shares, then the cash would go to the current shareholders. This way, it's new cash coming into the company.
As you say, it's a dilution of the worth of the current shareholdings. What are turds now will be slightly soggy ones.
Cav, unlike you I'm still hoping they get a stay of execution though I am looking forward to Hearts demise. I hope it takes another 3 years simply because in that time we are missing out on at least 1 if not 2 Category A games whilst the Ibrox club remain in the lower divisions. Were Hearts to go the same way that would mean we may only have 1, but more than likely 2, Category A games a season against Celtic. That would hurt us financially without doubt.
So to me our ideal scenario would be for Hearts to limp along drawing us in both the league and Scottish Cups for the next 3 seasons whilst we run up a number of record matching or breaking 7 or 8 goal victories. (Maybe throw in a few last minute winners along the way when we have been outplayed for the majority of the game just as a tease.)
Hearts, by the end, are even more financially rooked on their average home crowd of 4,000 approach us with a begging bowl asking to move in with us whilst they sort themselves out. The board consider it over the summer building their hopes up then say no thanks. Hearts are outvoted for a place in the league and Spartans or Edinburgh City get their place.
Oh the squirming would be wonderful.
Somewhere in this thread, I described the fan trait of indiscriminately and irrationally referring to Hibs in times of stress and discomfort as a sort of dummy tit or comfort blanket. It has even spread to the Jambo media. In this morning's Jamboman, in three seperate stories by three different journos, on one page, there is reference to " the Tynecastle side's 5-1 destruction of Edinburgh rivals....". ; " leading Hearts to Scottish Cup glory" and " Heart's 5-1 hammering of their bitter city rivals in May's one sided Scottish Cup Final ". No coincidence and unbelievably, not one of the articles was penned by Bathgate himself ...... yes there's Jambo strength in depth in the good old Scotsman. This infatuation with us is going to grow arms and legs in the next few months as they slip into the abyss. Cold and temporary comfort methinks.
Thanks for the answers. But give what you've stated above, how does that square with the Hearts statement that the aim is "to potentially step towards a supporter-owned football club" ? Since, to my ill-trained eye, I can't see how an annual issue of new shares could ever achieve this aim.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The word "potentially" is a powerful one :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by haagsehibby
I suppose that the plan (this week's one, anyway) is to raise the cash to pay HMRC in the short-term. When that particular storm is over, and the hordes see how successful that plan was, they will flock in their dozens to buy the rest of the shares off Vlad, UBIG and the others.
:cb
I might be wrong but I could have sworn I seen a post on facebook from someone i know who is already a shareholder at hearts saying they have an AGM tonight, if so will be interesting to see what comes from it :cb
I thought Romanov was offloading some of UBIGs shares?
From Stuart Bathgates article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=WIoHSu5v1Mo
Quote:
Hearts want to sell ten per cent of the shares owned by Ubig, the parent company in which Vladimir Romanov has a controlling interest, for £1.78m.
(Daily ******. I know. Sorry)Quote:
The Hearts owner is offering supporters the chance to buy 11 per cent of his 98 per cent shareholding and hopes to raise around £1.8million to keep the club in working capital.
Not familiar with UBIG's accounts, but can they allow the "asset" of £28M Hearts Debt to disappear from their accounts without making them insolvent too?
Avatar changed . Thats all .