Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

I haven't looked at the Local Development Plan for Edinburgh but it will be more up to date than when Cala almost bought the Piggery. My boss was heavily involved with the ldp for Perth so has a better idea of the Planning law.

---

If you're boss's initials are TK, then he used to be a Hibbie......,


:cb

So if the vote on Monday goes against them, or gets delayed they are basically liquidated. So BDO are going to have to spin it somehow to justify continuing on until the end of the season.

By rights should they not just liquidate them on tuesday?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnrebus

If you're boss's initials are TK, then he used to be a Hibbie......,


:cb

---

Like a lot on this board...............................:stirrer:

I can imagine them in a year's time, climbing over the wall to get into an even more decrepit PBS, sitting in their old seat and looking down at a field of long grass and weeds. In their tiny minds, the Famous are out there playing Barcelona in the Champions League.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

I can imagine them in a year's time, climbing over the wall to get into an even more decrepit PBS, sitting in their old seat and looking down at a field of long grass and weeds. In their tiny minds, the Famous are out there playing Barcelona in the Champions League.

---

Actually, going by the state of Cathkin Park, the piggery might actually improve with a bit of neglect ...



Attachment 12347

From Scottish Planning Policy

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publicati.../02/03132605/0


Playing Fields


156. Playing fields are an important resource for sport and should be provided in sufficient quantity, quality and accessibility to satisfy current and likely future community demand. Local authorities are expected to develop a playing fields strategy in consultation with sportscotland as part of the wider open space strategy. Playing fields, including those within educational establishments, which are required to meet existing or future needs should be identified in the local development plan. Playing fields and sports pitches should not be redeveloped except where:


the proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as a playing field,
the proposed development involves a minor part of the playing field which would not affect its use and potential for sport and training,
the playing field which would be lost would be replaced by a new playing field of comparable or greater benefit for sport and in a location which is convenient for its users, or by the upgrading of an existing playing field to provide a better quality facility either within the same site or at another location which is convenient for its users and which maintains or improves the overall playing capacity in the area, or
a playing field strategy prepared in consultation with sportscotland has demonstrated that there is a clear excess of sports pitches to meet current and anticipated future demand in the area, and that the site could be developed without detriment to the overall quality of provision.


157. Where a playing field is no longer required for formal sports use, planning authorities should consider whether the site has other recreational, amenity, landscape or biodiversity value which would warrant its retention as open space. Circular 7/2007 sets out the circumstances under which SportScotland should be consulted on planning applications.


158. Where, through a local facility strategy or playing field strategy, a need has been identified for new indoor or outdoor sports or recreation facilities in an area, the local development plan should identify sites where they can be located. For many sports and recreation developments locations within or close to residential areas will be the most appropriate.


It's primarily aimed at public sports pitches but it could be used to stand in the way of redevelopment. particularly by yam councillors on the planning committee. Not insurmountable IMHO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brunswickbill

From Scottish Planning Policy

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publicati.../02/03132605/0


Playing Fields


156. Playing fields are an important resource for sport and should be provided in sufficient quantity, quality and accessibility to satisfy current and likely future community demand. Local authorities are expected to develop a playing fields strategy in consultation with sportscotland as part of the wider open space strategy. Playing fields, including those within educational establishments, which are required to meet existing or future needs should be identified in the local development plan. Playing fields and sports pitches should not be redeveloped except where:


the proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as a playing field,
the proposed development involves a minor part of the playing field which would not affect its use and potential for sport and training,
the playing field which would be lost would be replaced by a new playing field of comparable or greater benefit for sport and in a location which is convenient for its users, or by the upgrading of an existing playing field to provide a better quality facility either within the same site or at another location which is convenient for its users and which maintains or improves the overall playing capacity in the area, or
a playing field strategy prepared in consultation with sportscotland has demonstrated that there is a clear excess of sports pitches to meet current and anticipated future demand in the area, and that the site could be developed without detriment to the overall quality of provision.


157. Where a playing field is no longer required for formal sports use, planning authorities should consider whether the site has other recreational, amenity, landscape or biodiversity value which would warrant its retention as open space. Circular 7/2007 sets out the circumstances under which SportScotland should be consulted on planning applications.


158. Where, through a local facility strategy or playing field strategy, a need has been identified for new indoor or outdoor sports or recreation facilities in an area, the local development plan should identify sites where they can be located. For many sports and recreation developments locations within or close to residential areas will be the most appropriate.


It's primarily aimed at public sports pitches but it could be used to stand in the way of redevelopment. particularly by yam councillors on the planning committee. Not insurmountable IMHO

---

If it is indeed a playing field does anyone fancy a 10-21 on it?
Sunday. Half 2. Tims against Billys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clerriehibs

Actually, going by the state of Cathkin Park, the piggery might actually improve with a bit of neglect ...



Attachment 12347

---

This football ground is where Hibs became the first Edinburgh club to lift the Scottish cup in 1887. Early morning fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brunswickbill

From Scottish Planning Policy

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publicati.../02/03132605/0


Playing Fields


156. Playing fields are an important resource for sport and should be provided in sufficient quantity, quality and accessibility to satisfy current and likely future community demand. Local authorities are expected to develop a playing fields strategy in consultation with sportscotland as part of the wider open space strategy. Playing fields, including those within educational establishments, which are required to meet existing or future needs should be identified in the local development plan. Playing fields and sports pitches should not be redeveloped except where:


the proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as a playing field,
the proposed development involves a minor part of the playing field which would not affect its use and potential for sport and training,
the playing field which would be lost would be replaced by a new playing field of comparable or greater benefit for sport and in a location which is convenient for its users, or by the upgrading of an existing playing field to provide a better quality facility either within the same site or at another location which is convenient for its users and which maintains or improves the overall playing capacity in the area, or
a playing field strategy prepared in consultation with sportscotland has demonstrated that there is a clear excess of sports pitches to meet current and anticipated future demand in the area, and that the site could be developed without detriment to the overall quality of provision.


157. Where a playing field is no longer required for formal sports use, planning authorities should consider whether the site has other recreational, amenity, landscape or biodiversity value which would warrant its retention as open space. Circular 7/2007 sets out the circumstances under which SportScotland should be consulted on planning applications.


158. Where, through a local facility strategy or playing field strategy, a need has been identified for new indoor or outdoor sports or recreation facilities in an area, the local development plan should identify sites where they can be located. For many sports and recreation developments locations within or close to residential areas will be the most appropriate.


It's primarily aimed at public sports pitches but it could be used to stand in the way of redevelopment. particularly by yam councillors on the planning committee. Not insurmountable IMHO

---

But the piggery is not a local authority owned piece of land. It is owned by a business that could soon be liquidated so the liquidators will be within their rights to flog it off to whoever wants to buy it be that another football club or a property developer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Key pic- site specific assessment of the COMAH zone. The COMAH zone in the 2004 pic covers most of the site, not so in the 2011 version. :wink:

http://home2.btconnect.com/anniviers/tiny.jpg

---

Does anyone else not find it a little strange that if these tanks were so dangerous, why on earth were kids allowed to attend a school right next to it for years?:confused:

Is tynecastle a public listed building?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdinAyr

Is tynecastle a public convenience?

---

Yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winston Ingram

Does anyone else not find it a little strange that if these tanks were so dangerous, why on earth were kids allowed to attend a school right next to it for years?:confused:

---

I'm guessing that it's the daft way that health and safety regulations work. The sometimes over-zealous and OTT regulations make a mockery of previous regulations and only appy to newbuild. How many times has a tradesmen or, say, a gas engineer, told you that something was nowadays technically illegal yet didn't have to be ripped out until redeveloped or replaced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangermouse

But the piggery is not a local authority owned piece of land. It is owned by a business that could soon be liquidated so the liquidators will be within their rights to flog it off to whoever wants to buy it be that another football club or a property developer.

---

The Edinburgh Local Development Plan is the thing to read.

The relevant section http://217.174.251.127/dev/plans/eclp/chap5.htm#OS1


It says:

Policy Os 1 - Open Space Protection

Proposals involving the loss of open space will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that:

• there will be no significant impact on the quality or character of the local environment
• the open space is a small part of a larger area or of limited amenity or leisure value and there is a significant over-provision of open space serving the immediate area and
• the loss would not be detrimental to the wider network including its continuity or biodiversity value and either
• there will be a local benefit in allowing the development in terms of either alternative equivalent provision being made or improvement to an existing public park or other open space or
• the development is for a community purpose and the benefits to the local community outweigh the loss.

The policy seeks to protect all open spaces, both public and privately owned, which contribute to the amenity of their surroundings and the city, which provide or are capable of providing for the recreational needs of residents and visitors or which are an integral part of the city’s landscape and townscape character and its biodiversity. Many of the open spaces identified on the Proposals Map are covered by more than one designation, depending on their environmental quality and value to the community. It will be more important to protect open spaces in the future, as the population of parts of the city increases and brings added pressure on existing resources. The Council will only consider limited releases of open space to development in exceptional circumstances, where the loss would not result in detriment to the overall network or provision in the locality, and there are compensatory circumstances, such as scope for improving the quality of provision elsewhere in the network. Amenity areas in housing which have been provided with no clear purpose or sense of ownership might be considered for development, especially if a more comprehensive redevelopment of a wider area is in prospect and the resulting open space would be smaller in area but better in quality and usefulness.

Policy Os 2 - Playing Fields Protection

In addition to the requirements of Policy Os 1, the loss of some or all of a playing field or sports pitch will be permitted only where one of the following circumstances applies:

• the proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as a playing field
• the proposed development involves a minor part of a playing field and would not adversely affect the use or potential of the remainder for sport and training
• an alternative playing field is to be provided of at least equivalent sporting value in a no less convenient location, or existing provision is to be significantly improved to compensate for the loss
• the Council is satisfied that there is a clear excess of sports pitches to meet current and anticipated future demand in the area, and the site can be developed without detriment to the overall quality of provision.

Playing field provision must be considered as a city-wide resource and in terms of its contribution to local needs. The Council’s assessment of provision in the city as a whole has concluded that the amount of pitches, whether or not in public ownership or publicly accessible, is equivalent to the need. However, about one third are substandard and would need to be improved. On this evaluation, the loss of pitches to development cannot be justified in principle. However, the loss might be acceptable if alternative equivalent provision is to be made in an equally convenient location. Development has been allowed where other pitches serving the local community are to be equipped with all-weather playing surfaces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdinAyr

Is tynecastle a public listed building?

---

Building is pushing it a bit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Yes

---

I would not do a 1 or 2 there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

The Edinburgh Local Development Plan is the thing to read.

The relevant section http://217.174.251.127/dev/plans/eclp/chap5.htm#OS1


It says:

Policy Os 1 - Open Space Protection

Proposals involving the loss of open space will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that:

• there will be no significant impact on the quality or character of the local environment
• the open space is a small part of a larger area or of limited amenity or leisure value and there is a significant over-provision of open space serving the immediate area and
• the loss would not be detrimental to the wider network including its continuity or biodiversity value and either
• there will be a local benefit in allowing the development in terms of either alternative equivalent provision being made or improvement to an existing public park or other open space or
• the development is for a community purpose and the benefits to the local community outweigh the loss.

The policy seeks to protect all open spaces, both public and privately owned, which contribute to the amenity of their surroundings and the city, which provide or are capable of providing for the recreational needs of residents and visitors or which are an integral part of the city’s landscape and townscape character and its biodiversity. Many of the open spaces identified on the Proposals Map are covered by more than one designation, depending on their environmental quality and value to the community. It will be more important to protect open spaces in the future, as the population of parts of the city increases and brings added pressure on existing resources. The Council will only consider limited releases of open space to development in exceptional circumstances, where the loss would not result in detriment to the overall network or provision in the locality, and there are compensatory circumstances, such as scope for improving the quality of provision elsewhere in the network. Amenity areas in housing which have been provided with no clear purpose or sense of ownership might be considered for development, especially if a more comprehensive redevelopment of a wider area is in prospect and the resulting open space would be smaller in area but better in quality and usefulness.

Policy Os 2 - Playing Fields Protection

In addition to the requirements of Policy Os 1, the loss of some or all of a playing field or sports pitch will be permitted only where one of the following circumstances applies:

• the proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as a playing field
• the proposed development involves a minor part of a playing field and would not adversely affect the use or potential of the remainder for sport and training
• an alternative playing field is to be provided of at least equivalent sporting value in a no less convenient location, or existing provision is to be significantly improved to compensate for the loss
• the Council is satisfied that there is a clear excess of sports pitches to meet current and anticipated future demand in the area, and the site can be developed without detriment to the overall quality of provision.

Playing field provision must be considered as a city-wide resource and in terms of its contribution to local needs. The Council’s assessment of provision in the city as a whole has concluded that the amount of pitches, whether or not in public ownership or publicly accessible, is equivalent to the need. However, about one third are substandard and would need to be improved. On this evaluation, the loss of pitches to development cannot be justified in principle. However, the loss might be acceptable if alternative equivalent provision is to be made in an equally convenient location. Development has been allowed where other pitches serving the local community are to be equipped with all-weather playing surfaces.

---

Would the PBS really be classed as "Open Space"? Anything but imo. (The reason that it has the best atmosphere in Europe is that it's poky and cramped.) I think if you can't see the grass from the road then it's a stretch to think of it as open space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Would the PBS really be classed as "Open Space"? Anything but imo. (The reason that it has the best atmosphere in Europe is that it's poky and cramped.) I think if you can't see the grass from the road then it's a stretch to think of it as open space.

---

ECC LDP says it is. For clarity, it applies to Easter Road, and all cemeteries as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdinAyr

Is tynecastle a public listed building?

---

I don't know. Is it or did THIS go any further?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

ECC LDP says it is. For clarity, it applies to Easter Road, and all cemeteries as well.

---

Ta. Cemeteries I get. PBS can shirley only be so classified as a result of historic yam presence in the decision-making. And ER shouldn't be protected on those grounds either imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Would the PBS really be classed as "Open Space"? Anything but imo. (The reason that it has the best atmosphere in Europe is that it's poky and cramped.) I think if you can't see the grass from the road then it's a stretch to think of it as open space.

---

really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickyS

really?

---

yeah and Celtic have the worlds best fans, a Celtic fan told me that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickyS

really?

---

Whatever you think of the football club, with its shielding of beasts and poppy thieving, you can't deny that Tynecastle's a great sporting venue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Whatever you think of the football club, with its shielding of beasts and poppy thieving, you can't deny that Tynecastle's a great sporting venue.

---

each to their own mate but i ****ing hate the place, 100 stadiums i would rather go to (maybe thats green tinted glasses tho i dinny ken)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Whatever you think of the football club, with its shielding of beasts and poppy thieving, you can't deny that Tynecastle's a great sporting venue.

---

It's an absolute hole of a ground. Bar the derby games that place is a morgue and that's coming from my mate who is a season ticket holder. For example..ER was rocking last derby but it's far from a place with a good atmosphere. Trust me don't believe the hype about that shed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Whatever you think of the football club, with its shielding of beasts and poppy thieving, you can't deny that Tynecastle's a great sporting venue.

---

You said "best in Europe" ;-)

My fat ar%e it is.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Whatever you think of the football club, with its shielding of beasts and poppy thieving, you can't deny that Tynecastle's a great sporting venue.

---

It would help if it was big enough to comply with UEFA standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Whatever you think of the football club, with its shielding of beasts and poppy thieving, you can't deny that Tynecastle's a great sporting venue.

---

A great sporting venue haha! how do you come to that conclusion? And to whoever said it was the best n europe for the atmosphere...away ye go, its not even in the top 100. Its a dull, boring *****hole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Whatever you think of the football club, with its shielding of beasts and poppy thieving, you can't deny that Tynecastle's a great sporting venue.

---

I used to like going to Tynie even when they introduced segregation as it did have an atmosphere. However, what they now call atmosphere is bile and hatred hurled at close range to opposition players and management. Horrible place nearly filled with horrible people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdinAyr

Is tynecastle a public listed building?

---

Nope.

There are no restrictions in place regarding knocking it down. The only thing any demolisher is required to do is to do a full photographic and measurement survey of the main stand prior to demolition.

edit: if that's what you meant... reading the following posts makes me think it might not be (what you meant) ! :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

I used to like going to Tynie even when they introduced segregation as it did have an atmosphere. However, what they now call atmosphere is bile and hatred hurled at close range to opposition players and management. Horrible place nearly filled with horrible people.

---

It's a poisonous cesspit .

Has Monday's creditors meeting actually been confirmed as taking place, (or even confirmed as cancelled?). Surely there would be some publicly available notice to either effect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Whatever you think of the football club, with its shielding of beasts and poppy thieving, you can't deny that Tynecastle's a great sporting venue.

---

Naaaaa it's a hole

Jambo myth being spread on that Mail story's comments that it was Hearts fans who stood up to Mercer to stop him shutting Hibs down.

Liars these people, just can't help themselves and don't even realise they are doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Jambo myth being spread on that Mail story's comments that it was Hearts fans who stood up to Mercer to stop him shutting Hibs down.

Liars these people, just can't help themselves and don't even realise they are doing so.

---

Hearts fans didn't do nothing. Can't blame Hibbys for trying to put a spoke in their wheels. Payback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Jambo myth being spread on that Mail story's comments that it was Hearts fans who stood up to Mercer to stop him shutting Hibs down.

Liars these people, just can't help themselves and don't even realise they are doing so.

---

And just how did they do that, by buying shares in Hibs? That was the only way David Rowland & his puppet Mercer were defeated, because he failed to get the 65 or 70% vote ( I forget the exact number ) of the shareholders necessary to approve the deal. I will always be appreciative of John Robertson standing up at the Usher Hall & the many decent Yams who attended Hands Off Hibs rally at ER &/or signed the petition but the circumstances were very different. Hearts are being punished for years of cheating but will continue to exist, in one form or another. We were being put to death for nothing to do with football but purely to allow a noxious multi-millionaire to make even more money from our demise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waxy

Hearts fans didn't do nothing. Can't blame Hibbys for trying to put a spoke in their wheels. Payback.

---

Em, a pedant writes, that means they did do something! :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

However, what they now call atmosphere is bile and hatred hurled at close range to opposition players and management. Horrible place nearly filled with horrible people.

---

The practice, from those at the front of the Wheatfield, of throwing the ball away from opposition players at throw-ins is one of the many things that you highlight above. Even the ball boys are trained to do it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

Em, a pedant writes, that means they did do something! :wink:

---

Yes that's what i was meaning :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S

Has Monday's creditors meeting actually been confirmed as taking place, (or even confirmed as cancelled?). Surely there would be some publicly available notice to either effect?

---

I am going on the basis that no news is good news, if you catch my drift.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

And just how did they do that, by buying shares in Hibs? That was the only way David Rowland & his puppet Mercer were defeated, because he failed to get the 65 or 70% vote ( I forget the exact number ) of the shareholders necessary to approve the deal. I will always be appreciative of John Robertson standing up at the Usher Hall & the many decent Yams who attended Hands Off Hibs rally at ER &/or signed the petition but the circumstances were very different. Hearts are being punished for years of cheating but will continue to exist, in one form or another. We were being put to death for nothing to do with football but purely to allow a noxious multi-millionaire to make even more money from our demise.

---

75%.

The circumstances are dramatically different. GGTTH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

And just how did they do that, by buying shares in Hibs? That was the only way David Rowland & his puppet Mercer were defeated, because he failed to get the 65 or 70% vote ( I forget the exact number ) of the shareholders necessary to approve the deal. I will always be appreciative of John Robertson standing up at the Usher Hall & the many decent Yams who attended Hands Off Hibs rally at ER &/or signed the petition but the circumstances were very different. Hearts are being punished for years of cheating but will continue to exist, in one form or another. We were being put to death for nothing to do with football but purely to allow a noxious multi-millionaire to make even more money from our demise.

---

Spot on. The only thing that prevented the "takeover" was David Duff refusing to sell his shareholding (and taking a financial hit in the process). He may have been instrumental (along with Gray) in getting us into that vulnerable position, but he deserves credit for digging his heels in at the 11th hour.

I think Sheila Rowland ( matrimonial disharmony), who held a percentage of her husbands shares, was also instrumental in WM failing to get the required shares to kill off Hibs. WM would have killed us off in a heartbeat if given the chance, he didn't succeed, and it was nothing to do with romanticised pleas from the Hear7s support.
Are they deid yet.

GGTTH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

Spot on. The only thing that prevented the "takeover" was David Duff refusing to sell his shareholding (and taking a financial hit in the process). He may have been instrumental (along with Gray) in getting us into that vulnerable position, but he deserves credit for digging his heels in at the 11th hour.

---

His name is dirt to many within our support however he took a huge financial hit by refusing to sell. On the rally day at Easter Road he was crying his eyes out. Our club meant something to David Duff.

At this stage the best policy is just to agree with them.

* Hearts fans saved Hibs and we're showing our gratitude by treacherously destroying their club.

* Hearts saved the Lithuanian investors and tax payers millions of pounds and now they show their gratitude by letting the club die.

* Hearts saved the British taxpayer and charities and local businesses millions of pounds, and now our government stand by idly and watch the club head for liquidation.

:violin::violin::violin::violin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickyS

each to their own mate but i ****ing hate the place, 100 stadiums i would rather go to (maybe thats green tinted glasses tho i dinny ken)

---

I can't really get what's great about it. Their old stand is a death trap and the new one look 50 rather than 20 years old. The atmosphere is decent but it's nowhere near the best i've experienced in Scotland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S

At this stage the best policy is just to agree with them.

* Hearts fans saved Hibs and we're showing our gratitude by treacherously destroying their club.

* Hearts saved the Lithuanian investors and tax payers millions of pounds and now they show their gratitude by letting the club die.

* Hearts saved the British taxpayer and charities and local businesses millions of pounds, and now our government stand by idly and watch the club head for liquidation.

:violin::violin::violin::violin:

---

Having worked in a few psychiatric institutions in my time, you're right, this is the best policy when dealing with the delusional. However. These "case studies" are being cared for "in the community" and a cold, harsh dose of reality, although sometimes dangerous and cruel, is also on occasion warranted.

Prognosis - imbecilic. Prescription - patient(s) to wear a remedial baseball cap with a contraption that dangles a sign before their eyes baring the motto "hertz ur cattled".

Cap to be worn in public at all times, report to a doctor if recurrent twitch becomes uncontrollable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brunswickbill

From Scottish Planning Policy

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publicati.../02/03132605/0


Playing Fields


156. Playing fields are an important resource for sport and should be provided in sufficient quantity, quality and accessibility to satisfy current and likely future community demand. Local authorities are expected to develop a playing fields strategy in consultation with sportscotland as part of the wider open space strategy. Playing fields, including those within educational establishments, which are required to meet existing or future needs should be identified in the local development plan. Playing fields and sports pitches should not be redeveloped except where:

..................


It's primarily aimed at public sports pitches but it could be used to stand in the way of redevelopment. particularly by yam councillors on the planning committee. Not insurmountable IMHO

---

Please have a look at the EDC Document on the subject. What you have quoted is completely irrelevant, as they have already stated (as far back as ten years ago) they would allow housing and retail on the site. The blast zone mentioned in the document is now even less relevant, as it now only covers the north west corner of the stadium ,much less than it did ten years ago.


If you want a brief summary of the relevant parts, please read my (admittedly sarcastic) post on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdinAyr

Is tynecastle a public listed building?

---

It's more likely a listing building.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamilton Handling

If it is indeed a playing field does anyone fancy a 10-21 on it? Sunday. Half 2. Tims against Billys.

---

Ten twenty wanner.... Not heard that for ages. Mind and bring yur jumpers for goalposts. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aldo

Ten twenty wanner.... Not heard that for ages. Mind and bring yur jumpers for goalposts. ;-)

---

The goalposts are already there .. just mind and bring them away with you afterwards :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibs07p

I think Sheila Rowland ( matrimonial disharmony), who held a percentage of her husbands shares, was also instrumental in WM failing to get the required shares to kill off Hibs. WM would have killed us off in a heartbeat if given the chance, he didn't succeed, and it was nothing to do with romanticised pleas from the Hear7s support.
Are they deid yet.

GGTTH

---

Sheila Rowland played a part alright, but I think as a director. Her vote against the takeover along with Duff and Grey outvoted the other 2 David Rowland stooges.

I think it went on to a share count which we could have lost as well ,but Kenny Waugh who had sold out to Duff and Grey originally paid about £ 250,000 for a share holding that tipped the balance in our favour.

Waugh lost all that money with the parent company administration.

There were a few big players below the radar but the Yam hoards are not amongst them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

The Edinburgh Local Development Plan is the thing to read.

The relevant section http://217.174.251.127/dev/plans/eclp/chap5.htm#OS1


It says:

Policy Os 1 - Open Space Protection

Proposals involving the loss of open space will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that:

• there will be no significant impact on the quality or character of the local environment
• the open space is a small part of a larger area or of limited amenity or leisure value and there is a significant over-provision of open space serving the immediate area and
• the loss would not be detrimental to the wider network including its continuity or biodiversity value and either
• there will be a local benefit in allowing the development in terms of either alternative equivalent provision being made or improvement to an existing public park or other open space or
• the development is for a community purpose and the benefits to the local community outweigh the loss.

The policy seeks to protect all open spaces, both public and privately owned, which contribute to the amenity of their surroundings and the city, which provide or are capable of providing for the recreational needs of residents and visitors or which are an integral part of the city’s landscape and townscape character and its biodiversity. Many of the open spaces identified on the Proposals Map are covered by more than one designation, depending on their environmental quality and value to the community. It will be more important to protect open spaces in the future, as the population of parts of the city increases and brings added pressure on existing resources. The Council will only consider limited releases of open space to development in exceptional circumstances, where the loss would not result in detriment to the overall network or provision in the locality, and there are compensatory circumstances, such as scope for improving the quality of provision elsewhere in the network. Amenity areas in housing which have been provided with no clear purpose or sense of ownership might be considered for development, especially if a more comprehensive redevelopment of a wider area is in prospect and the resulting open space would be smaller in area but better in quality and usefulness.

Policy Os 2 - Playing Fields Protection

In addition to the requirements of Policy Os 1, the loss of some or all of a playing field or sports pitch will be permitted only where one of the following circumstances applies:

• the proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as a playing field
• the proposed development involves a minor part of a playing field and would not adversely affect the use or potential of the remainder for sport and training
• an alternative playing field is to be provided of at least equivalent sporting value in a no less convenient location, or existing provision is to be significantly improved to compensate for the loss
• the Council is satisfied that there is a clear excess of sports pitches to meet current and anticipated future demand in the area, and the site can be developed without detriment to the overall quality of provision.

Playing field provision must be considered as a city-wide resource and in terms of its contribution to local needs. The Council’s assessment of provision in the city as a whole has concluded that the amount of pitches, whether or not in public ownership or publicly accessible, is equivalent to the need. However, about one third are substandard and would need to be improved. On this evaluation, the loss of pitches to development cannot be justified in principle. However, the loss might be acceptable if alternative equivalent provision is to be made in an equally convenient location. Development has been allowed where other pitches serving the local community are to be equipped with all-weather playing surfaces.

---

But it's not an open space nor a playing field. Still not convinced the Yams could use this to their advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Whatever you think of the football club, with its shielding of beasts and poppy thieving, you can't deny that Tynecastle's a great sporting venue.

---

I agree, it's the best sporting venue in Gorgie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangermouse

But it's not an open space nor a playing field. Still not convinced the Yams could use this to their advantage.

---

Beleive me, that is straight out of the Edinburgh LDP. I work amongst Planners and my manager put me onto this info.

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/178...tructure_plans

So long as we get a 'NO' vote on Monday then I don't give a hoot if it's a playing field or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

Beleive me, that is straight out of the Edinburgh LDP. I work amongst Planners and my manager put me onto this info.

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/178...tructure_plans

---

Its a big document, what page is applicable ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangermouse

I agree, it's the best sporting venue in Gorgie.

---

Nah, what about the bowling club?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangermouse

I agree, it's the best sporting venue in Gorgie.

---

Wrong!!!!

Gorgie Mills Bowling Club, while still a ****hole, is a vastly superior sporting venue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Nah, what about the bowling club?

---

Aye Gorgie Mills, Bainfield, even Ardmillan or Fountain Brewery or North British Distillery Bowling Clubs!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S

At this stage the best policy is just to agree with them.

* Hearts fans saved Hibs and we're showing our gratitude by treacherously destroying their club.

* Hearts saved the Lithuanian investors and tax payers millions of pounds and now they show their gratitude by letting the club die.

* Hearts saved the British taxpayer and charities and local businesses millions of pounds, and now our government stand by idly and watch the club head for liquidation.

:violin::violin::violin::violin:

---

Now, now, Lest we Forget and all that - what about one Jack Alexander's claims that they "single-handedly saved football as we know it" and won World War One as well?

One thing I'm sure of - LEST WE FORGET - HMFC DIN NOT PAY FOR THEIR POPPIES!! - let them die (as painfully as possible, but please just them f*** off and die). THE CLUB WITH NO SHAME.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

The Edinburgh Local Development Plan is the thing to read.

The relevant section http://217.174.251.127/dev/plans/eclp/chap5.htm#OS1


It says:

Policy Os 1 - Open Space Protection

Proposals involving the loss of open space will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that:

• there will be no significant impact on the quality or character of the local environment
• the open space is a small part of a larger area or of limited amenity or leisure value and there is a significant over-provision of open space serving the immediate area and
• the loss would not be detrimental to the wider network including its continuity or biodiversity value and either
• there will be a local benefit in allowing the development in terms of either alternative equivalent provision being made or improvement to an existing public park or other open space or
• the development is for a community purpose and the benefits to the local community outweigh the loss.

The policy seeks to protect all open spaces, both public and privately owned, which contribute to the amenity of their surroundings and the city, which provide or are capable of providing for the recreational needs of residents and visitors or which are an integral part of the city’s landscape and townscape character and its biodiversity. Many of the open spaces identified on the Proposals Map are covered by more than one designation, depending on their environmental quality and value to the community. It will be more important to protect open spaces in the future, as the population of parts of the city increases and brings added pressure on existing resources. The Council will only consider limited releases of open space to development in exceptional circumstances, where the loss would not result in detriment to the overall network or provision in the locality, and there are compensatory circumstances, such as scope for improving the quality of provision elsewhere in the network. Amenity areas in housing which have been provided with no clear purpose or sense of ownership might be considered for development, especially if a more comprehensive redevelopment of a wider area is in prospect and the resulting open space would be smaller in area but better in quality and usefulness.

Policy Os 2 - Playing Fields Protection

In addition to the requirements of Policy Os 1, the loss of some or all of a playing field or sports pitch will be permitted only where one of the following circumstances applies:

• the proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as a playing field
• the proposed development involves a minor part of a playing field and would not adversely affect the use or potential of the remainder for sport and training
• an alternative playing field is to be provided of at least equivalent sporting value in a no less convenient location, or existing provision is to be significantly improved to compensate for the loss
• the Council is satisfied that there is a clear excess of sports pitches to meet current and anticipated future demand in the area, and the site can be developed without detriment to the overall quality of provision.

Playing field provision must be considered as a city-wide resource and in terms of its contribution to local needs. The Council’s assessment of provision in the city as a whole has concluded that the amount of pitches, whether or not in public ownership or publicly accessible, is equivalent to the need. However, about one third are substandard and would need to be improved. On this evaluation, the loss of pitches to development cannot be justified in principle. However, the loss might be acceptable if alternative equivalent provision is to be made in an equally convenient location. Development has been allowed where other pitches serving the local community are to be equipped with all-weather playing surfaces.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Its a big document, what page is applicable ?

---

The link is at the top

Arguing with a yam at my work, he is absolutely certain that the shares aren't frozen and once they "breeze" through Monday's meeting - his words, not mine - then they just have to wait for the cooling period.

Please tell me this twat isn't correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

Please have a look at the EDC Document on the subject. What you have quoted is completely irrelevant, as they have already stated (as far back as ten years ago) they would allow housing and retail on the site. The blast zone mentioned in the document is now even less relevant, as it now only covers the north west corner of the stadium ,much less than it did ten years ago.


If you want a brief summary of the relevant parts, please read my (admittedly sarcastic) post on it.

---

Only trying to provide information to help with the discussion. Afraid you're wrong about it being irrelevant. Scottish Planning Policy, as it's name suggests, provides the policy background for all planning in Scotland, hence why the Edinburgh LDP reflects the text. It would be taken into account along with LDP if there is a proposal to redevelop.

I haven't been able to find any reference to Tynecastle being a listed building although the old school appears to have a couple of listings.

You can have look yourself http://data.historic-scotland.gov.uk.../f?p=2200:10:0

This a side issue to the ongoing financial shenanigans so apologies for boring people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Its a big document, what page is applicable ?

---

Tynecastle isn't listed by the council in their list of fields/venues etc in their 2010 report:

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/2016/open_space_strategy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlasgowHibee

Arguing with a yam at my work, he is absolutely certain that the shares aren't frozen and once they "breeze" through Monday's meeting - his words, not mine - then they just have to wait for the cooling period.

Please tell me this twat isn't correct.

---

I'm confident they were frozen but less confident on the procedure for unfreezing.
Could be that a 'yes' vote on Monday automatically unfreezes them or it could take a year long court procedure.
Nobody has managed to give a definite answer to that yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brunswickbill

Only trying to provide information to help with the discussion. Afraid you're wrong about it being irrelevant. Scottish Planning Policy, as it's name suggests, provides the policy background for all planning in Scotland, hence why the Edinburgh LDP reflects the text. It would be taken into account along with LDP if there is a proposal to redevelop.

I haven't been able to find any reference to Tynecastle being a listed building although the old school appears to have a couple of listings.

You can have look yourself http://data.historic-scotland.gov.uk.../f?p=2200:10:0

This a side issue to the ongoing financial shenanigans so apologies for boring people.

---

The PBS is definitely NOT listed.

It is noted as a building of Architectural Interest which offers virtually no protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Whatever you think of the football club, with its shielding of beasts and poppy thieving, you can't deny that Tynecastle's a great sporting venue.

---

I keep hearing and reading about PBS being a great place to play, great atmosphere etc. I just don't agree. It's a total s***hole, with a nasty horrible atmosphere. I've said for a long time, particularly as the yaks get more & more angry and the chip on their shoulders gets bigger by the day, that a player from an opposition club - probably Hibs or Celtic - could be seriously assaulted or injured there. I really really hope I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Sheila Rowland played a part alright, but I think as a director. Her vote against the takeover along with Duff and Grey outvoted the other 2 David Rowland stooges.

I think it went on to a share count which we could have lost as well ,but Kenny Waugh who had sold out to Duff and Grey originally paid about £ 250,000 for a share holding that tipped the balance in our favour.

Waugh lost all that money with the parent company administration.

There were a few big players below the radar but the Yam hoards are not amongst them.

---

Waugh sold his shareholding to Mercer late in the game.

Mercer had enough shares but had set himself a target over an above that required which, because Duff did not sell him his shareholding, he failed to meet. Defeated by his own ego.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emerald green

I keep hearing and reading about PBS being a great place to play, great atmosphere etc. I just don't agree. It's a total s***hole, with a nasty horrible atmosphere. I've said for a long time, particularly as the yaks get more & more angry and the chip on their shoulders gets bigger by the day, that a player from an opposition club - probably Hibs or Celtic - could be seriously assaulted or injured there. I really really hope I'm wrong.

---

Most places have a good atmosphere when they're close to capacity (Hampden is an exception to this). No-one will convince me that Tynecastle is capable of generating a better atmosphere than that we saw at ER in the January game against them.

On the subject of planning protection for sporting venues, there is no real precedent in Edinburgh. Old Meadowbank was bulldozed, admittedly to build the current white elephant. Powderhall went the same way in 1999 for a residential development despite being on a flood plain. Marine Gardens was flattened to build a bus depot in 1962.

Outside of Edinburgh Carfin dog track was demolished in 1999.

Strangely West Lothian Council refused planning permission for Sainsbury to build a supermarket on the site of Armadale Stadium. This was largely because the planning department favoured another site for retail on Council-owned land near the station. They did cite as an additional reason to protect the stadium for use by Edinburgh Monarchs speedway team. This was rather unwelcome as Monarchs had been offered enough cash by Sainsbury to build a new track nearby in return for support in the planning application.

I can't think why the City of Edinburgh Council would want to block development of a stadium that is not 'fit for purpose' according to a former Hearts chairman. The Council are strapped for cash and could net a tidy sum from the developers given the proximity of the tram line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleplum

Most places have a good atmosphere when they're close to capacity (Hampden is an exception to this). No-one will convince me that Tynecastle is capable of generating a better atmosphere than that we saw at ER in the January game against them.

---

:agree: We just need a winning team on the pitch and the fans will return in big numbers and create a brilliant atmosphere at ER.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

On the subject of planning protection for sporting venues, there is no real precedent in Edinburgh. Old Meadowbank was bulldozed, admittedly to build the current white elephant. Powderhall went the same way in 1999 for a residential development despite being on a flood plain. Marine Gardens was flattened to build a bus depot in 1962.

Outside of Edinburgh Carfin dog track was demolished in 1999.

Strangely West Lothian Council refused planning permission for Sainsbury to build a supermarket on the site of Armadale Stadium. This was largely because the planning department favoured another site for retail on Council-owned land near the station. They did cite as an additional reason to protect the stadium for use by Edinburgh Monarchs speedway team. This was rather unwelcome as Monarchs had been offered enough cash by Sainsbury to build a new track nearby in return for support in the planning application.

I can't think why the City of Edinburgh Council would want to block development of a stadium that is not 'fit for purpose' according to a former Hearts chairman. The Council are strapped for cash and could net a tidy sum from the developers given the proximity of the tram line.

---

Midlothian Council granted planning consent for a supermarket on the Arniston Rangers pitch. Sportscotland supported it but only if a new pitch was provided elsewhere. They are a community team however.

For what its worth I don't think PBS is open space but I do think the Council would say it was a pitch that needed to be replaced., Possibly an all weather pitch at Saughton. Scottish Planning Policy is just one of many documents that are considered when determining an application. The Local Development Plan should reflect the SPP but tailored towards Edinburgh. Housing, student accommodation, hotel, hostel, retail offer and a multitude of other uses would be acceptable at Tiny subject to addressing technical standards including the COMAH regulations.

If you want to see abuse of the COMAH regulations look at the blast zone for Grangemouth and how miraculously the zones bend around the Falkirk ground. Brockville is now a Morrisons so it can be done. Muirton Park is now an Asda.

Hasn't Spartans old ground been sold to developers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

The PBS is definitely NOT listed. It is noted as a building of Architectural Interest which offers virtually no protection.

---

Might not be listed but defo listing!! ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser1962

Waugh sold his shareholding to Mercer late in the game.

Mercer had enough shares but had set himself a target over an above that required which, because Duff did not sell him his shareholding, he failed to meet. Defeated by his own ego.

---

Kaiser

So KW purchased 250k worth of shares in HFC then sold them to WM - at a profit I wonder?

Sorry if someone has posted on this already but it seems things are getting tighter at tynecastle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26889183

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenpaper55

Sorry if someone has posted on this already but it seems things are getting tighter at tynecastle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26889183

---

Working without pay? He'll be strugglin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenpaper55

Sorry if someone has posted on this already but it seems things are getting tighter at tynecastle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26889183

---

He surely disnae need the money anyway, he's been places and done things. :agree: Anyway maybe he's like McGlynn and his wife works. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenpaper55

Sorry if someone has posted on this already but it seems things are getting tighter at tynecastle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26889183

---

Presumably he's on a performance-related contract and he's had his annual review?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibeerealist

Kaiser

So KW purchased 250k worth of shares in HFC then sold them to WM - at a profit I wonder?

---

I have never heard it said that KW sold his shares to Mercer.

It was an investment fund that had them originally and their investment would have been toast if they did not sell.

Mercer needed the shares for takeover to proceed ( needed 75% or 90% ) but Waugh matched Mercers offer. If KW had sold the shares on we would have been history.

At least, that is the way I remember it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QMU-1875

Hasn't Spartans old ground been sold to developers?

---

Spartans have a nice new sports centre that negates the need for the old ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desperate Dan

He surely disnae need the money anyway, he's been places and done things. :agree: Anyway maybe he's like McGlynn and his wife works. :greengrin

---

:faf: Maybe he's "the first of the few" or maybe the first of the many !.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

Spartans have a nice new sports centre that negates the need for the old ground.

---

And the yams are no longer welcome. :-)

Is mondays meeting still on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waxy

Is mondays meeting still on?

---

Good work. It's getting a bit confused on here... this thread has turned to memories of the Hands off Hibs campaign, while a separate thread is now speculating on the influence of pesky Hibbys in scuppering HMFC's rescue plan.

If Sergey (who it seems is not a Jambo after all, who knew?) does destroy Hearts, can I phone a Jambo and say "Youse died. We ended you"? :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacomoseven

Good work. It's getting a bit confused on here... this thread has turned to memories of the Hands off Hibs campaign, while a separate thread is now speculating on the influence of pesky Hibbys in scuppering HMFC's rescue plan.

If Sergey (who it seems is not a Jambo after all, who knew?) does destroy Hearts, can I phone a Jambo and say "Youse died. We ended you"? :wink:

---

It's mandatory to make those calls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacomoseven

Good work. It's getting a bit confused on here... this thread has turned to memories of the Hands off Hibs campaign, while a separate thread is now speculating on the influence of pesky Hibbys in scuppering HMFC's rescue plan.

If Sergey (who it seems is not a Jambo after all, who knew?) does destroy Hearts, can I phone a Jambo and say "Youse died. We ended you"? :wink:

---

Someone on nowayback has mentioned that they are hearing from a source within FOH it's been postponed. Personally don't think they have been told jot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waxy

Is mondays meeting still on?

---

Nobody knows.

Personally I think it'll go ahead. The cva will be approved and kickback will go mental whilst everyone here slits their wrists. 20 days will pass for the cooling off period with no appeals. People will moan about them getting away with it.

Then when it comes to getting a court date, a date will be set. Then moved, then moved again, probably postponed enough to have them liquidated.

This thread has provided much more entertainment than Hibernian FC of late.

There's surely the makings of a best selling novel in here somewhere!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waxy

Is mondays meeting still on?

---

Who knows? It's hilarious tho', as over on throbbingsphincter.com they're even starting to wind each other up. Some geezer has posted that Monday's meeting has been postponed and that FOH has more or less said the games up. Might be a naughty Hibby but seems more like a Jambo as normally their first instinct is to cry Hobo. Either way it's being taken kind of seriously by quite a few of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Sheila Rowland played a part alright, but I think as a director. Her vote against the takeover along with Duff and Grey outvoted the other 2 David Rowland stooges.

I think it went on to a share count which we could have lost as well ,but Kenny Waugh who had sold out to Duff and Grey originally paid about £ 250,000 for a share holding that tipped the balance in our favour.

Waugh lost all that money with the parent company administration.

There were a few big players below the radar but the Yam hoards are not amongst them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser1962

Waugh sold his shareholding to Mercer late in the game.

Mercer had enough shares but had set himself a target over an above that required which, because Duff did not sell him his shareholding, he failed to meet. Defeated by his own ego.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibeerealist

Kaiser

So KW purchased 250k worth of shares in HFC then sold them to WM - at a profit I wonder?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

I have never heard it said that KW sold his shares to Mercer.

It was an investment fund that had them originally and their investment would have been toast if they did not sell.

Mercer needed the shares for takeover to proceed ( needed 75% or 90% ) but Waugh matched Mercers offer. If KW had sold the shares on we would have been history.

At least, that is the way I remember it.

---

:agree: Sorry but the bit in bold is incorrect. I know KW well and he's told me what happened at that very worrying time. That is a grossly unfair and untrue claim, IMHO.

I seem to remember Kenny Waugh paid £250,000 for shares to ensure mercer could not get them,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waxy

Is mondays meeting still on?

---

Yep, the CVA will be ratified, Hearts will be out of Administration by the end of May and Rudi will sign in time for the new season, where he'll tear up the Championship single handed and they'll be back to torment us the following season.


Is everybody clear on that?





:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibeerealist

Kaiser

So KW purchased 250k worth of shares in HFC then sold them to WM - at a profit I wonder?

---

He had sold his shareholding to Duff three years earlier for £700k

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

I have never heard it said that KW sold his shares to Mercer.

It was an investment fund that had them originally and their investment would have been toast if they did not sell.

Mercer needed the shares for takeover to proceed ( needed 75% or 90% ) but Waugh matched Mercers offer. If KW had sold the shares on we would have been history.

At least, that is the way I remember it.

---

Mercer wanted 75% and the trio of Waugh, Harrison (whose role is often overlooked) and Farmer were buying shares to block the takeover with Farmer, in particular, working on a "just enough" basis with no intention of taking over. Harrison was far more aggresive. They had, with Duff's shareholding, Mercer pegged back when Waugh sold his shareholding to Mercer in June 1990 although it appears to have been part of a deal that would allow Mercer to take the club's property assets and AN Other (Waugh?) to buy the clubs name, badge, players etc allowing the football club to continue.

That gave Mercer a 64% share (he claimed 66%) and took Harrison/Farmer by surprise leaving David Duff, with his 11% stake, standing between the club and shutdown. Duff did not sell, at great personal cost, and the rest, as they say, is history. There would have been a lot of "what if's" if he had sold.

That Farmer did end up owning the club is as much down to the very persuasive Kenny MacLean as any other factor. It is unlikely anyone else at that time had the cahoonas to go nose to nose with David Rowland and come out on top. What is often forgotten it was Farmer who took the club into administration a year later to ditch Rowland.

If Mondays meeting is still on then what do the guys in the know on .net think will be the outcome ?

I'm getting a wee bit nervous that it won't be the big L for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoneyburn hibs

If Mondays meeting is still on then what do the guys in the know on .net think will be the outcome ?

I'm getting a wee bit nervous that it won't be the big L for them.

---

Without the aid of a Crystal Ball, nobody could possibly know that.

Don't believe anybody that tells you they know for a fact that "it's in the bag" or "it's definitely being rejected".


Anyway, why are you so nervous about the prospect of them not being Liquidated? What's the big deal?

:confused:

Any more info on whether or not the meeting's been postponed? :dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

Without the aid of a Crystal Ball, nobody could possibly know that.

Don't believe anybody that tells you they know for a fact that "it's in the bag" or "it's definitely being rejected".


Anyway, why are you so nervous about the prospect of them not being Liquidated? What's the big deal?


:confused:

---

Want them gone, wiped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

Any more info on whether or not the meeting's been postponed? :dunno:

---

Any more info on whether it was actually scheduled in the first place :dunno:

Liquidated or not they are ****ed whatever the outcome is! It will be more enjoyable watching all the in-fighting and the journey to their next administration!!