Hearts might have submitted accounts to SPL, nobody knows. Although it is very unlikely...Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Printable View
Hearts might have submitted accounts to SPL, nobody knows. Although it is very unlikely...Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius
avoid Europe, Asia. avoid bonds. I would go for US companies - maybe an index fund on S&P 500.
Sod investments. What about the first race at Ascot tonight?Quote:
Originally Posted by desantos0773
:top marks Never really expected an answer but you are basically where my head was anyway. I did think about the BRIC (and maybe the S). I shall take direction before doing anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by desantos0773
I had it in my head that the season officially ended on June 10th. meaning they could be docked 18 points up until this point, excellent summary otherwise. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bajillions
Talking of pedantic sods....:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Bajillions
UKIO Bankas hold "a" security over Tynie. UBIG also have a security over all of the assets, but IIRC UKIO's ranks first.
And it's "separate". :greengrin
Good summary, though. I'm just back from marking exams, and I would have given you a decent mark. :aok:
:greengrin A man after my own heart. I was made reduntant about 27 years ago but moved under TUPE and just changed hats at midnight, It was a good package and I wanted to go and put it straight on the first favourite. Wife and bank manager refused to release the funds :-(.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Would I be right in saying "the value of investments can go down as well as up"? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by desantos0773
Are they not the same person? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius
HI CWG you state non-submission of 2012 accounts, In the Evening news and Daily papers they are spouting off that they are reducing costs, living within thier means and have borrowed no money from Ukio/Ubig in the last 12 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If all is sweet why havent they submitted 2012 accounts ? In your opinion you think they are telling porkies.
Also when does the SPL stipulate they should be submitted for, are they breaking the rules here.
Anyone can answer just directing it at yourself good man as you filled me in on a previous question cheers
But in the long run they all mainly go up unless in a dodgy team from West EmbraQuote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
Firstly, they may have submitted the 2012 accounts to the SFA (it's them, not the SPL), although that is unlikely. They definitely haven't submitted them to Companies House.Quote:
Originally Posted by steviehibsleith
The likeliest reason for not submitting the accounts to CH is that they have yet to be signed off by their auditor. The auditor has a problem, as I'm sure Cav will explain in greater detail than I can. S/he has to satisfy themselves that the company is a going concern before they can give any decent report on the accounts. With UBIG already stating that they won't support HMFC, and with the UKIO stuff going on, I can't see any way that HMFC ARE a going concern.
So, there will be a stand-off between the company and the auditor. The company won't want a report saying "the company is donald-ducked", and the auditor won't want to compromise their own standards. They will also want paid. :greengrin
I get you now. Say I was to acquire some shares in this team, at say a penny a share. What sort of returns can I expect after: a) one year; b) five years; and c) 51 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by desantos0773
What will break the stand-off and how long does that normally take?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I don't know that it can be, without someone getting burned. The options are probably:-Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
1. the auditors say "it's not a going concern", the company says "okay then".... the accounts are published, and the company goes under very quickly.
2. the company says "here's £5m, give us a decent report", the auditor says "okay then". Given events elsewhere, I don't think that would stave off insolvency. (Legal note:- this is in no way impugning the reputation of Johnston whoever, or the audit profession..... apart from those ****ers who did Enron).
3. nothing happens. Companies House eventually get nasty, and strike the company off.
4. events elsewhere render all of this insignificant and meaningless.
It keeps getting repeated that Boone benefits from putting them in admin but there must be some benefit in doing it before they spend all the season ticket money on under performing footballers?
Very very nearly. :greengrin The bank manager at the time lives next door to me!Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Too wade off HMRC and the forced sale of Tyncsatle by the Lithuanian administrators ( time to seek a buyer of the whole club including stadium - hightly unlikley anyone has the money - or find a new home before sale goes through). The latter they have been clearly working on - meeting with council and stories on on here describing valuation of Tynie indicate it is a course they are pursuing.
Yeah, it's about control, or at least the illusion of control.Quote:
Originally Posted by desantos0773
I see in tonight's News Allisbarry is changing his position again on the £1.5 million due to HMRC.
I think he had previously said it was to be paid in monthly installments, but he has a list of key dates and one is a £ 500,000 payment due to HMRC in May ( does not say which day unfortunately )
Also finance expert :rolleyes: Neil Pately says now is the right time for any Yams wanting to buy HOMFC to get their funding together and make an offer to the Lith. admin.
He definitely did say it was monthly payments.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
I seen there was a lassie called Alice Barry on ITV's This morning show today :greengrin
Alice Barry - could it be a sign :greengrin
No joke BTW lol
Some things to ponder!
1) The administrators job is damage limitation,they have to recover as much as they can
2) If sold as a going concern then HMFC have to retain their SPL status for administrator to recover a higher price.
3) I would be surprised if the only interest shown has been from the FOH or other interested parties wishing to keep the club going as is.
4) There must be property developers/speculative interested parties that want the land for development and would not be surprised if some bids are being tabled as we speak or are with the Temp Administrator in Lithuania.
5) Purely speculative this bit - Assuming a National House Builder wants to build 12 Blocks Flats 4 Storeys High with 4 Flats per Storey = 192 Units @ £150k average per unit that equates to £28,800,000. Then assuming the land is valued at £5 million the percentage of land valued against the gross figure = 17.36%. I am no expert on this but I would hazard a guess that this is a viable margin proposition for any developer
6) There is no White Knight or any party that have shown an interest in securing the club and stadium that have both the funds available now to purchase as a going concern. I believe that the FOH could muster a couple of million maximum but that would take time and thats time the administrator can't or won't entertain.
7) They (HMFC) may rise like a phoenix from the ashes, but in a lower league under another name without their own ground. They will be liquidated in my opinion and the asset they call the Pink Wongadome will be sold off to property developers. Think its important to remember that Edinburgh is a growing city and the demand for the right sorts of properties will continue to grow.
8) My one fear is that Edinburgh Council step in and buy it under the premise that they are going to develop it at some point in the future but in the meantime allow HMFC to rent it from them and continue playing there.
Conclusion - They will be Liquidated and assets sold off to highest bidder. It will happen but suspect that it won't be soon maybe see something concrete develop around July/August
I can set your mind at ease re no 8)
The council just don't have that amount of free money to do it.
Never say never of course, the only way it could happen is if significant funds are pulled from elsewhere .... The new primary school for example.
The whole idea is being looked upon as political suicide if it was pursued.
Source = drinking buddy who is a councillor and a Yam.
I'd love to be in the room if/when Foundation of Hearts make an offer...Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
"So how much money do you have??",
"Well none actually, but take a look at all these pledges...."
*Liths struggle to contain laughter when presented with a list of names such as 'Barry Ryde', 'Phil McCracken', 'Eric Shaun' etc etc*
So what happens next? I can't see they have much hope of getting paid!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
What penalties are likely to be imposed for non-return of accounts? Hearts were let off last season by the football authorities for late submission of accounts (presumably down to the same issues with the auditors). This cannot drag on for ever. Are they trying to stagger on till the end of the season?
While there seems little point in Administration, it would at least buy a little time. Maybe the plan was to go for administration but Dundee's recent revival has scuppered that plan as it would mean certain relegation and make a buyer even harder to find.
The only real thing of value is the land that the stadium sits on. The rest of HMFC has little value and without being liquidated carries debts. Nobody has the money to pay for the stadium who wants to save HMFC. That is why liquidation is on the cards with the stadium sold alone. A new club would have to be reconstituted and find somewhere else to play. If administration can slow the process down then Hearts could sell stadium and give the money to the administrators and move to new ground without being liquidated and end up in Div. 1 instead of applying to enter Div. 3!Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Blood
There are two penalty regimes for non-submission of accounts. (Actually, there are 3. HMRC will penalise them, but that's financial. Good luck with that).Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
1. the SFA have a range of penalties that they can use. Last year, being the first year of the new licensing regime, they probably wrote to HMFC "reminding" them of their responsibilities. It remains to be seen what they will do this year. The penalties range from financial through to suspension and termination of membership.
2. Companies House's penalty regime has probably already kicked in. There is a proposal to strike the company off, which has probably (although not certainly) been triggered by the non-submission of the accounts. That proposal will probably be (or have been) objected to by HMRC, so the company remains in existence for the moment.
That would require UKIO and UBIG to write off the remainder of their secured debts, no? And what would happen to the unsecured creditors?Quote:
Originally Posted by desantos0773
Oh ma sides!!!!
Just been on brokeback and read this corker!
"As as been discussed numerous times, the £25m debt mentioned in the article, if indeed that's what it is, is never going to be paid or asked for. Romanov/UBIG/whoever gambled, spent big, timed it badly with a global recession and ultimately lost - as many financial institutions, football clubs and other businesses have done. They will accept this as part of business. If every bank or lender or investor closed down businesses to get their money back there would be no businesses left."
This is sooo funny and outlandish it MUST have been one of you lot that posted it!?
If this really reflects how the Saville's think then its no wonder they won't be here next season!
:D