Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

I don't see how the Yams can legitimately say they are self sufficient when they've had to restructure debt to hmrc, have missed players' wages on numerous occasions this season, and have had the begging bowl out just to see out the season.

That's just about as far removed from self-sufficiency as you can get without actually being deid.

I suspect HMFC will have consulted with their lawyers and I think they will take the club into a Voluntary Administration........

1) Does this buy them time/protection from being liquidated by Valnetas UAB the Lithuanian appointed administrator.

2) By going into Voluntary Admin gives them greater control on their own destiny.

3) They want to control the process rather than being pressured/dominated by Valnetas

Whatever outcome is, Liquidation is an inevitable consequence. FOH offer of say £2 million will be kicked into touch, there are many property developers/speculators that see more worth in *********** than that being offered by FOH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4

i would define a parent company is the company you.plaster all over your website saying they are your parent company!!

http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/2...241384_2358272

NEXT

---

The rules are not as simple as that. Rule A6.12 talks about the penalty only applying after the Board has considered the integrity of the league, the reputation of the league and the relationship between the [parent company] and the [club]. The club can then also appeal on the grounds that the parent company insolvency is a force majeure event (ie out of their control).

http://www.scotprem.com/content/medi...BER%202012.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

I don't see how the Yams can legitimately say they are self sufficient when they've had to restructure debt to hmrc, have missed players' wages on numerous occasions this season, and have had the begging bowl out just to see out the season.

That's just about as far removed from self-sufficiency as you can get without actually being deid.

---

The problem for the SPL is proving it.

We all know that without repayment plans and share issues (where are those shares BTW?) then they would not have managed to limp over the finishing line. However, the SPL would need hard proof that they were unable to trade within their projected turnover for them to force the issue, which I suspect they would not really want to do anyway.

Best birthday ever :). I'm LOVING this. A huge thanks to folk like CWG for keeping us less informed up to speed.

Slightly off topic but my mate is a car salesman with Volkswagen on Gorgie Road. They store about 10 to 15 cars in the car park at the main stand at Tynecastle, something they have done for years with the club, they have some sort of agreement. Anyway they got told yesterday to have all the cars moved from the car park as soon as possible. Bit strange considering they have been there for about 4 years.

I am sure the overspending by HOMFC which in turn forced UBIG into approx. £ 50 million of bail outs in the way of debt for equity and forgiveness debt scams played a part in any insolvency process of Heart's parent company.

The problem will be getting the blazers and media to accept it. There are none as blind as those who don't want to see !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamig

Im sure he said Vlad had appealed the freezing of HIS assets.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

I don't see how the Yams can legitimately say they are self sufficient when they've had to restructure debt to hmrc, have missed players' wages on numerous occasions this season, and have had the begging bowl out just to see out the season.

That's just about as far removed from self-sufficiency as you can get without actually being deid.

---

I agree Matty and further to the point, why has no-one asked about the accounts? If they say they are self sufficient then show the evidence in your accounts!! Simples

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

Today's bit of Yam propaganda in the Scotsman is pushing a line I predicted a couple of months back: that UBIG being pushed into administration should not automatically result in a points deduction for HMFC.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/hearts-...bust-1-2918028

---

Two points on the bit you quoted.

1. Hearts are not self-sufficient. The amounts owed to UBIG were due for repayment by December 2011 HoMFC have been unable to make that repayment for over a year, therefore they can't pay their debts as they fall due, therefore they are insolvent.
2. 'Mr Romanov' has often boasted about putting £60m into HoMFC since he bought them. That money has (or should have) contributed massively to the club's performance over those years and has also contributed to UBIG's downfall. No club in Scotland has benefitted more from having a parent company and no club is more deserving of the penalties for failure of their group.

BTW, some folk here have incorrectly stated that HMFC would be deducted a minimum of 15 points next season. That isn't correct.

Rule A6.8 states that the minimum deduction is 10 points. As HMFC already have more than 30 points this season, the deduction would be one third (rounded up) of their final total this season. As it stands that would be 14 (40/3 = 13.333).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

No, the Liths would not be involved in a CVA as they are secured creditors.
I reckon that HMRC would be the main creditors in a CVA, although they're not known for accepting CVAs so the outcome would be the same .. rejected.

---

I see, well who is the other 10m debt owed too? We are hearing that 15m is owed to Ukio but they are 25 million in debt. Am guessing the other 10m is owed to UBIG? Are they also a secured creditor? If so, then your right, that only leaves HMRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CB_NO3

Slightly off topic but my mate is a car salesman with Volkswagen on Gorgie Road. They store about 10 to 15 cars in the car park at the main stand at Tynecastle, something they have done for years with the club, they have some sort of agreement. Anyway they got told yesterday to have all the cars moved from the car park as soon as possible. Bit strange considering they have been there for about 4 years.

---

Far from off topic. I've seen the cars there myself in the car park off Wheatfield Street and wondered where they had come from.

If the padlocks go on the gates the cars could be claimed as Hearts assets by an admin. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Two points on the bit you quoted.

1. Hearts are not self-sufficient. The amounts owed to UBIG were due for repayment by December 2011 HoMFC have been unable to make that repayment for over a year, therefore they can't pay their debts as they fall due, therefore they are insolvent.
2. 'Mr Romanov' has often boasted about putting £60m into HoMFC since he bought them. That money has (or should have) contributed massively to the club's performance over those years and has also contributed to UBIG's downfall. No club in Scotland has benefitted more from having a parent company and no club is more deserving of the penalties for failure of their group.

---

EVERY club in the SPL, or club that's been drawn against them in the cup, has suffered because of their financial doping. There's absolutely no way they should be dodging the points deduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CB_NO3

Yeah the CVA would have to be agreed by the Lithuanian authorities as they are the main creditor with the bulk of the debt. It would make no sense for them to accept a 20p in the £1 deal as they will end up owning the stadium (which was valued at 6.8m as security on the 15m debt to Ukio). I think it will take someone to offer 6.8 million in order for the Liths to talk, if they dont they could eventually liquidate the company and sell the stadium anyway.

---

The debt to Lithuania is secured though. As I understand it (via Cav's postings) the secured debt has to be settled first before any potential CVA is put to the unsecured creditors. As there is no chance of anybody coming forward with any real dough, the Lithuanian authorities will get it all and there will be nothing for a CVA.

An administration only makes sense as a way to skip debt if a new owner has already done a deal to buy off the Lithuanians at a reduced level. I guess it could also be used as a desperate stalling tactic ... :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

BTW, some folk here have incorrectly stated that HMFC would be deducted a minimum of 15 points next season. That isn't correct.

Rule A6.8 states that the minimum deduction is 10 points. As HMFC already have more than 30 points this season, the deduction would be one third (rounded up) of their final total this season. As it stands that would be 14 (40/3 = 13.333).

---

If, as has been suggested, they are waiting until the end of the season to put themselves (or be put into) administration so that any points deduction will be from the start of next season and allowing them to remain in the SPL. Surely it is in their best interests not to gain any more points this season therefore limiting the points deduction next season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CB_NO3

Slightly off topic but my mate is a car salesman with Volkswagen on Gorgie Road. They store about 10 to 15 cars in the car park at the main stand at Tynecastle, something they have done for years with the club, they have some sort of agreement. Anyway they got told yesterday to have all the cars moved from the car park as soon as possible. Bit strange considering they have been there for about 4 years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Far from off topic. I've seen the cars there myself in the car park off Wheatfield Street and wondered where they had come from.

If the padlocks go on the gates the cars could be claimed as Hearts assets by an admin. :thumbsup:

---

:agree: Absolutely properly on-topic. Sounds like Something Is Afoot. Hopefully.:greengrin

So as I understand it, somehow the rules of the SPL have changed and they no longer have to hold of until the 1st of June, the traditional end of season, but now only have to wait until the last SPL fixture is played. Is anyone not a bit mythed by this? How can it have changed overnight?
The SPL playing games again to keep them in the league and ensure they keep the ed derby?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CB_NO3

I see, well who is the other 10m debt owed too? We are hearing that 15m is owed to Ukio but they are 25 million in debt. Am guessing the other 10m is owed to UBIG? Are they also a secured creditor? If so, then your right, that only leaves HMRC.

---

Yes, the other 10M is owed to UBIG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seanduff

So as I understand it, somehow the rules of the SPL have changed and they no longer have to hold of until the 1st of June, the traditional end of season, but now only have to wait until the last SPL fixture is played. Is anyone not a bit mythed by this? How can it have changed overnight?
The SPL playing games again to keep them in the league and ensure they keep the ed derby?

---

To be fair, it says the last game in the rules and there's no evidence to suggest they've been changed in the last few days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GordonHFC

If, as has been suggested, they are waiting until the end of the season to put themselves (or be put into) administration so that any points deduction will be from the start of next season and allowing them to remain in the SPL. Surely it is in their best interests not to gain any more points this season therefore limiting the points deduction next season.

---

Not really.

Even if they won their last three games, it would only cost them three more points next season. By winning their last three games, they would likely finish at least 8th, gaining at least £150K in prize money on their current position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey

To be fair, it says the last game in the rules and there's no evidence to suggest they've been changed in the last few days.

---

So why has everyone been saying the 1st of June? As I thought that's when a season ends. It certainly does in FIFA haha

I am really really starting to think that as soon as this game has been played then the fun will start....

Hence they get away with it big time....

This is my one and only fear.

They know exactly what they are doing IMHO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seanduff

So why has everyone been saying the 1st of June? As I thought that's when a season ends. It certainly does in FIFA haha

---

It was (another error) in the Sun story about Hearts on Tuesday.

The SPL rulebook was largely revised at the end of last season, due to clubs being unhappy with the rules as they related to Rangers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aldo

I am really really starting to think that as soon as this game has been played then the fun will start....

Hence they get away with it big time....

This is my one and only fear.

They know exactly what they are doing IMHO

---

Yes and no. HMFC have a clear short term objective, which is to ensure that no points penalty applies this season. Even if they succeed in that, however, it is far from the end of their problems.

eg1 the points penalty would apply next season

eg2 HMFC would be at risk of liquidation (owing £1M unsecured to HMRC)

eg3 they would be unable to sign players while in administration

Who's to say even if they manage to get to the end of the season, without going into admin then they go into it, they will make it out of admin? Why is this likely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

It was (another error) in the Sun story about Hearts on Tuesday.

The SPL was largely revised at the end of last season, due to clubs being unhappy with the rules as they related to Rangers.

---

Ah I see. Fair enough take it back. Although one thing to think about the corrupt SFA is why has sheils retracted his statement about paranoid fc after a meeting with the SFA aka, Peter lawell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

Yes and no. HMFC have a clear short term objective, which is to ensure that no points penalty applies this season. Even if they succeed in that, however, it is far from the end of their problems.

eg1 the points penalty would apply next season

eg2 HMFC would be at risk of liquidation (owing £1M unsecured to HMRC)

eg3 they would be unable to sign players while in administration

---

I see. Why can thus not just happen.

Here's a scenario that may play out if HMFC hang on .....

HMFC avoid admin and relegation this season - but are so weakened (by admin and 14 points) next season that they get relegated to Div 1. In the meantime The Rangers walk thru' Div 2 next season and are promoted to Div 1. So the season after next sees either Big Hun or Little Hun battle out for promotion with one of them failing (assuming there isn't a fix by then to promote 2 teams).

Going to repost this so someone can answer it as I don't understand this:
Who's to say even if they manage to get to the end of the season, without going into admin then they go into it, they will make it out of admin? Why is this likely
Can this not lead to liquidation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newry Hibs

Here's a scenario that may play out if HMFC hang on .....

HMFC avoid admin and relegation this season - but are so weakened (by admin and 14 points) next season that they get relegated to Div 1. In the meantime The Rangers walk thru' Div 2 next season and are promoted to Div 1. So the season after next sees either Big Hun or Little Hun battle out for promotion with one of them failing (assuming there isn't a fix by then to promote 2 teams).

---

You've just solved your own scenario .......... :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aldo

I am really really starting to think that as soon as this game has been played then the fun will start....

Hence they get away with it big time....

This is my one and only fear.

They know exactly what they are doing IMHO

---

Mibbes aye......

It's worth remembering that in relation to these discussions HoMFC are their directors - as things stand no-one else can take defensive action on behalf of the club. Those directors are all Lithuanian based and were also directors of the rapidly failing UBIG until they bailed out en masse. That would suggest that a) they're not very good and b) they're more concerned with protecting their own ***** than the health of a wee Scottish football club.