Far too sensible.
Printable View
Far too sensible.
It's already been challenged through the courts, HMRC lost. The football authorities are clever, they insist football debts have to be honoured ( I know thats a strange word for Yams ) in order for their registration to continue. As football is ( supposedly ) their ( Yams ) reason for existing thats why they, in this case football debts have priority. The real problem is the CVA process, the principle of trying to keep businesses alive is laudable but it was never intended for football clubs, public laundries or fantasists.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon
...in which case all those individuals who go bankrupt, whether by their own fault or not, should be denied public resources until they pay their Council Tax. Yeah? :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon
As I thought GG so this means either the CVA was amended after it was accepted ( unlikely ) or F of H were out of the picture & Ann Budge was involved long before it became public. Something rotten in the state of Gorgie I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Sounds a wee bit sarcastic mate. The stories were believable because they were true. Unlike what was written in the press.Quote:
Originally Posted by GlasgowHibee
Anyway, in the words of the Big O, "it's over".
That might be the downside admittedly but how many continue on like football clubs?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Just dosent feel right thats all.
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by brog
Many businesses do. That's the point of administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon
Agree about comment re Sergey some folk happy to put the boot in when it's not warranted or necessary .Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
Seems that some folk lose everything, and others just stick two fingers up and administration appears a mere, and minor, inconvenience.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
For businesses, specifically football clubs there needs to be investigation into the nature of why they entered administration. Choosing NOT to pay taxes, council / government funded initiatives, small businesses in the pursuit of success in such a way that there was never going to be a way to pay it all back, even if it meant success is very very different to businesses falling on hard times because of the recession etc. In the case of hearts, and probably a lot of other football clubs, its easy to see that this was the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The story of HMFC avoiding their public and social liabilities is repeated all too often in mainstream businesses. When money is tight, the first debt that gets bumped is the rates, or the wee tradesman, and then HMRC. "I'll catch up when things are better" is the normal story.Quote:
Originally Posted by HFCDaveA
Sadly, though, there are many businesses who don't care, and wilfully don't pay. That's fraud. The law is there..... but proving "intent" is the problem.
In HMFC's case, I would expect that any complaint of fraud would be laid against the directors, rather than the company itself.
Then that is all wrong. The normal hardworking people of the UK are being fleeced by spives, chancers and crook "football clubs" like sevco and hear7s. We need a change in the law to stop this happening. No one gives a flying jot down there about the people they have conned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antwerphibs
The ' it's not fair' brigade need to realise that the owners of Hearts lost everything when they went into admin.
The new owners can't and shouldn't be held liable for pre admin debts.
It's the business's customers that I suspect you want to see punished but that can't happen. If DFS go bust, nobody comes round and repossess your sofa. That's life.
Yup. The problem many have is that hmfc are a football club and as such there's emotion involved. I can understand why people are getting upset, but it is what it is an people need to get over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
And as such, in a sporting environment it is seen as cheating. For there to be real financial fair play, the powers need to apply proper punishments to clubs that enter administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antwerphibs
My suggestions;
Instant relegation to the 3rd tier (at the highest)
Banned from representing Scotland in Europe for 10 years
Signing ban until the club starts to make operating profit, with the signing ban renewed every year they make a loss or the wages/turnover ratio goes above a certain number (say 80%).
Stopping them singing is taking it a little too far don't you think ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nando
The worst thing is that I even proof read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonHFC
According to Word "proofread" is one word. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nando
Yes, you're right, I have got nothing useful to add.
I disagree. The new owners should be made to repay the unpaid tax. The previous owner was Vlad and he is/was a crook and a conman. Someone needs to pay these debts, that is why we all pay more. Your sofa thing is just daft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I thought that was what financial fair play was all about. It obviously isn't working.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nando
One flaw in your plan is the signing ban. The team would have to be able to sign U21 players at least otherwise as existing players left for better contracts in higher leagues they'd have no players left. Might have to be on a one out one in basis like how Hearts brought in that prolific striker from down south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The owners of Hearts lost nothing. They had nothing to start with, everything came from funds now being repaid by the Lithuanian state.
I am also sure the owners managed to line their own pockets from cash generated by HOMFC instead of paying taxes, business rates, utilities , police , etc etc etc.
The new owners of HOMFC will have an extra 2 Scottish Cup wins on the club record to big themselves up with.
Re. your analogy to DFS. If the sofa turned out to be stolen it might well be repossessed , especially if the " customer " knew damn well it was stolen. :greengrin
I understood Ozy's point to be that we, the Hibs support, would like to see Hearts customers, i.e. the jambo supporting plums, punished. Because we dislike/hate etc them. The people who actually got punished (along with creditors, charities, Lithuanian pensioners) were the Hearts shareholders and that is as it usually is in this sort of situation. I happen to think the fleecing of the jambos over and over and over again for the past two years has been a very enjoyable spectable and hope it will continue. All the sevco supporters had to do was pay for a season ticket and start climbing through the divisions again.Quote:
Originally Posted by southsider
We still don't have proper financial fair play regs in Scotland. We have punishments for when clubs go into admin but no way of policing clubs spending while it happens. This is a failure of the SFA.
This seems a bit harsh. As already mentioned, you're punishing the new regime, which would probably act as enough of a deterrent to prevent anyone taking over a club that runs into bother. This would essentially mean that any club that gets into financial trouble would have almost no way out if it and that would kill every Scottish club that enters administration. I know we all want blood but we need to think what if it wasn't someone we hate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nando
I'll remind you that part of Tom Farmer's plan was to take Hibs into receivership (what's now called administration) to weed out the bad assets. Would he have saved Hibs if your suggested sanctions were in place?
And the new owners are not crooks (probably). See above for why this would kill any club that goes into admin.Quote:
Originally Posted by southsider
It is possible for a football club to genuinely be the victims of an a inept owner (eg. Hibs) and we need to legislate for that possibility too.
:agree: There needs to be more transparency and accountability to the SFA, which should be protecting clubs from themselves (I know, I know) as well as others from cheats. Don't let clubs cheat and don't let them drag the reputation of Scottish football down with them when they get caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
What should be considered though, was that both Hearts and Rangers won competitions despite having gained an unfair advantage by breaking the rules. This is the very definition of cheating and as such a fair punishment would be stripping of all titles that can be proven to have been won with an improper advantage. It genuinely astonishes me that Rangers were let off with it* and that Hearts' cup titles haven't been discussed like this yet.
*Assuming we consider them to be the same club. Either way the record should show "No winner" for those seasons.
:agree: correctQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Why not? I'm not saying every penny should be paid back immediately, but put a payment plan in place to repay the money over a set affordable period.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I doubt the majority of private companies that have been done out of money will do business with the people that shafted them, so why should the public sector have to?
It maybe does prevent future owners, but these ideas would very likely scare every club into ensuring this never happens and to play fair. Also, the fans could influence how the regime is managed. These are the people who should, IMO, be the ones that feel the hit the most. If they take the "good times" without any remorse or protest at what was happening then they deserve everything that comes their way.Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaHiberņa
Maybe STF would have or wouldn't have, but maybe we wouldn't have been in that position if the deterrents were there in the first place.
The football authorities were too slow to act over Hearts. There should be an immediate points deduction for the following offences:
- Failure to lodge annual report and accounts on time
- Failure to pay yaxes on due date
- Failure to pay wages on due date.
The penalty should double with each suucessive offence.
If this had been in place, Hearts would have been relegated long before they went into Administration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
One of many many failures....
However, most of those involved in FOH and Anne Budge herself, new fair well what was going on and did not act at the time therefore, certain aspects of punishment should be upheld!Quote:
This seems a bit harsh. As already mentioned, you're punishing the new regime, which would probably act as enough of a deterrent to prevent anyone taking over a club that runs into bother. This would essentially mean that any club that gets into financial trouble would have almost no way out if it and that would kill every Scottish club that enters administration. I know we all want blood but we need to think what if it wasn't someone we hate?
STF, weeded out those toxic assets, sold them off, paid every creditor and issued shares to fans.Quote:
I'll remind you that part of Tom Farmer's plan was to take Hibs into receivership (what's now called administration) to weed out the bad assets. Would he have saved Hibs if your suggested sanctions were in place?
The new owners of HMFC new exactly what was happening behind the scenes, inaction nor ignorance negates association!Quote:
And the new owners are not crooks (probably). See above for why this would kill any club that goes into admin.
It very much is possible however, Vlad was known and sent packing by how many Scottish teams, 3?Quote:
It is possible for a football club to genuinely be the victims of an a inept owner (eg. Hibs) and we need to legislate for that possibility too.
All titles and trophies should be removed without question nor comeback! Also the SPFL should ensure from now, that any unpaid tax by clubs entering administration/liquidation will not be treated as a newco, sevco, bidco etc, until the public purse has been fully settled!Quote:
What should be considered though, was that both Hearts and Rangers won competitions despite having gained an unfair advantage by breaking the rules. This is the very definition of cheating and as such a fair punishment would be stripping of all titles that can be proven to have been won with an improper advantage. It genuinely astonishes me that Rangers were let off with it* and that Hearts' cup titles haven't been discussed like this yet.
Why would they take a sofa that has been paid for ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I bought a new corner sofa from Land of Leather at Straiton about 5 years ago. Went in on the Saturday, signed up, paid etc. It was to be delivered the next Wednesday, stopped on the Monday night for another look at it and the shop had shut down. Sign on the door saying they had been liquidated!! 21 weeks later it arrived. This has no relevance to anything really, just wanted to join in the sofa chat
Passed Gary Locke with his wife and kids in M & S the Gyle today. He looked like a man without a care in the world. Anyone suggesting Hearts haven't "gotten away with it" haven't looked at his smug pus.
Wonder if he was buying a sofa? Hope they got him to pay up front.:cb
I saw him today also at the Gyle, coming out of NEXT. Looked smug as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
A) We don't know that for certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSmith
B) You can't punish someone for something they might have known about (Romanov et al., however, should of course be brought to justice).
C) You've not really answered my point, if we had these really harsh penalties no one would ever have tried to save Hearts. As much as we might hate them we can't just let Scottish clubs keep dying.
Lets imagine FOH never happened and the Scandinavians were named as preferred bidders by BDO. Should their hypothetical 'regime' be punished for Romanov's actions? The chances are they wouldn't have seen trying to rescue Hearts as worth their while.
While in their case that's probably fair, what about an innocent club?
I'm not disputing that, but imagine Hibs had had a massive signing ban, automatic relegation, the other suggested penalties etc. We'd never have won the League Cup in 1992 because of the previous owners' mistakes forcing STF's hand yet by the apparent logic the fans should have been punished for not pressuring the board earlier. If we're going to apply draconian sanctions we need to be consistent.Quote:
STF, weeded out those toxic assets, sold them off, paid every creditor and issued shares to fans.
In Vlad's case, yes he was. But my point is that people can slip through nets and not every new owner will be as obviously dodgy as Vlad. What if we were talking about another club and another owner where the fans had genuinely been fleeced? I'm not saying there shouldn't be sanctions but lets be proportionate and consider all the circumstances that come into play without letting our contempt for the **** blind us to the big picture.Quote:
It very much is possible however, Vlad was known and sent packing by how many Scottish teams, 3?
At least we agree on something.:greengrinQuote:
All titles and trophies should be removed without question nor comeback!
This gets tricky though. If they have to repay HMRC why not small businesses, private individuals etc? There's no easy answer so as much as I hate to say it the SFA are probably best off as they are letting the law deal with this while "protecting their own" with regards to football debts.Quote:
Also the SPFL should ensure from now, that any unpaid tax by clubs entering administration/liquidation will not be treated as a newco, sevco, bidco etc, until the public purse has been fully settled!
And breathe...
The receivership part was only deemed necessary because David Rowland wanted an excessive amount for his shareholding.Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaHiberņa
Where are the multi quote complainers ?
Good point! :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Weststandwanab
We've decided to start complaining about hibs instead ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Weststandwanab
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
In that case I hope you revert to complaining about me soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by #FromTheCapital
*Cough cough* '91Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaHiberņa
:wink:
I bought a sofa from Reids furniture place. My sofa was bust but Reids did nothing about it. ********!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaHiberņa
I'd suspected by your previous comments that you know nothing about the events of 1990 & 91. Thanks for confirming that with the comment above.
Pray tell, oh wise one, WHY would Hibs have received the penalties you mentioned above for an Administration event if they did not even go into Administration? You seem to be perpetuating Yam fantasies of the events of the time, things that never happened.
Oh and Hibs won the League cup in 91, not 92.
After Hibs won the league cup in 1993 I saw Gareth Evans and a wumman looking at a new sofa in Reid's at Picardy Place. Presumably looking to spend his winning bonus. If the sofa turned out faulty, Hibs should hand back the trophy. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Yip and STF should pay everyones debts and go live in a shoebox in the middle of the road, eating hot gravel.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
100% correct and thanks to STF and his " team" this was quickly sorted out !!!
Administration was never discussed other than in the scenario you mention
If that were law, then it's likely that most administrations would fail. Liquidation would become the norm for insolvent companies, which would defeat the object of the admin provisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by EH6 Hibby
:thumbsup: My favourite post for a while on hereQuote:
Originally Posted by NadeAteMyLunch!
Sofa so good.Quote:
Originally Posted by NadeAteMyLunch!
...since you couch it in those terms... :top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by Peevemor
Top fact about Hibs 91 cup winning team : Dave Beaumont ended his career with more medals than Gary McKay, John Colquhoun, Walter Zico Kidd and Craig Levein put togetherQuote:
Originally Posted by Tynie01011973
That's a top fact!
There's a similar one about neil orr...Quote:
Originally Posted by NadeAteMyLunch!
Dave BeaumontQuote:
Originally Posted by South Sub
I'm I not right in saying they never even kicked a ball in anger, in the 91 final.
Don't think he had ever played for us at all, had he not just signed and was on the bench?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeithenHibby
Both unused subs.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeithenHibby
Yeah, that rings a bell. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4
He did go on to play 70 games for us, scoring 2 :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4
:agree: Correct. He must have thought he'd landed the dream move! "What will I win when I actually play?!?"
I remember now :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by South Sub
TBF, I think folk were just trying to point out that perhaps you don't really have to multi-quote repeatedly. I wouldn't think anyone would have an issue when it is used sporadically though :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Weststandwanab
If they weasel their way out of relegation then the game truly is a bogey.Quote:
keith jackson @tedermeatballs 30m
Imagine if hearts weren't the only top flight club to be deducted points? How would that impact on the relegation issue? Just a thought.
Woops, that's embarrassing. Not even a typo, just a complete brain fart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynie01011973
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the subject but I like to think I have a ok idea of what happened. I'm more than happy to be put right though, everyday's a school day. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
A quick Google search informs me that I really didn't (and still don't really) know what receivership is but it will suffice to say I thought it to be a lot more like administration than it actually is. Hence the scenario I outlined. I now realise why that might have come across as nonsense.Quote:
Pray tell, oh wise one, WHY would Hibs have received the penalties you mentioned above for an Administration event if they did not even go into Administration? You seem to be perpetuating Yam fantasies of the events of the time, things that never happened.
That said, surely if the SFA are going to be tough on clubs that aren't careful financially Hibs would have been disciplined in some way, if we're going down that route? What about entering receivership? Although an act of necessity, the SFA can't be seen to let clubs get themselves into that sort of situation unpunished.
Perhaps the Hibs example was ill-thought, I was trying to frame the debate in a manner that would get people to see things a bit differently.
We're going off the original point though; I agree with NandoTM that clubs need to be strongly disincentivised from being financially reckless and there have to be strong penalties for teams that attempt to shed debt in the way Hearts have done. However, the potential for destroying any club's chance at finding new investment as well as essentially punishing supporters that may (not in Hearts' case I realise) be totally blameless is not, in my view, the way to do things.
Financial Fair Play was never designed to stop teams from going bust. It was worked out by the former G14 clubs to protect their cartel and avoid any challenges from upstarts.Quote:
Originally Posted by dangermouse
It would do very little about a club such as Hearts. The Yams would probably pass the FFP regulations over the past three years. You are allowed to lose 45 million Euros over three years study period. Plus all wages on pre-2010 player contracts can be disrearded for the 2010-2011 season. All spending on infrastructure and player development is also disregarded. Hearts have been losing around Ģ7 million a year so would pass FFPR rather easily (if they had stayed out of administration.
Man United and Arsenal are up to their neck in debts but pass easily. Meanwhile Man City are totally debt free and are heading for prifitability in the current financial year but are under threat of sanctions. Also Liverpool, who failed FFPR are not being investigated because they were not competing in Europe this current season. Go figure!
Chat doing the rounds is killie have had an improperly registered player and games involving him may suffer points deductions. Started with keith Jackson though so not convinced but others picking it up now too. Could get messy considering the danny wilson registration fudge at start of the season.Quote:
Originally Posted by GlasgowHibee
Dailly record back page tomorrow apparently.
Sent from my GT-I8190 using Tapatalk
That'll be the Tory Party of football allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. Wonder why they called it Financial Fair Play when it obviously isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Barry doesn`t seem to think the shares need released by a court. Done and dusted by the end of next week apparently... :coffee:
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.co...over-1-3386835
Whats the odds on a Hibs derby win and opposition against the share transfer both on the same day?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waxy
At - Clutching - Straws
:wink:
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaHiberņa
It takes a big man to admit he made a mistake, so fair play to you for that.
Fortunately, I don't ever make mistakes so the issue never comes up :wink:
My question was tounge in cheek but thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by FranckSuzy
Keep the Faith the big L has not gone yet and they will not exit Admin before the end of this season in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurferRosa
Is that another non-mistake? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Bawwy may well be right, but if he is it'll be the first time.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurferRosa
See this Hearts supporting fanny still implying Vlad was only criticised because he was foreign, doesn't actually mention what happened to Hearts 'share issue'.
Ewan Murray (@mrewanmurray)
24/04/2014 16:58
I see headlines of Aberdeen planning a share issue to help with a Ģ16m debt and stadium plans. Just as well their owner isn't foreign...
The EEN article has my head spinning.
Were FoH not named preferred bidders in the CVA? How come there is no mention of them except as potential recipients of Budgie's shareholding at some point in the future?
How does the transfer of UBIG/Ukio shareholding to BIDCO sever all ties with eastern Europe when Vlad's relative still holds 15% of the shares?
Why do BDO simply disappear to allow Budgie a free rein? Surely as administrators they will be involved (and paid) until they have been rubber stamped by the Court of Session?
If Bawwy was looking for a good news story he could have done a lot better.
If the share issue is a sham and the stadium plans turn out to be a fantasy with no prospect of being approved, then Ewan Murray might have a point to make. As it is he's just embarrassing himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Tell prick Ewan Murray that his hero Vlad has shafted Edinburgh Council for a confirmed Ģ 33,484.14 for unpaid business rates at their Ukio Bankas office in Castle Street. If the Bank had got a decent price for its security over the PBS our council might have seen some of the cash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Now we are all a little bit poorer thanks to the Gorgie thieves and their accomplices.
If there's any straws left, i'll be seen clutching them :)Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
[QUOTE=Weststandwanab;3981773]My question was tounge in cheek but thank you.
is your tounge inside your moungth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fat freddyis your tounge inside your moungth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Weststandwanab
:hnetinq:
He failed to mention that the foreign owner who he puckered up to has yet to issue any shares. "Fraud this is the village idiot, village idiot meet fraud".Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomoseven
[QUOTE=fat freddy;3981874]It is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Weststandwanab
Apologies for my mistake my fingers must have been quicker than my eyes.
I'd like to take one official Hibs press call, just one, so I could use the opportunity to answer Barry or euan's inane and illinformed question with that replyQuote:
Originally Posted by GreenLake
Genius
Maybe I'm proving how thick I am but, if Vlad's assets are not frozen, how come the old bank building hasn't been sold yet, or is this different from the shares?
How long have we got left with the 20 day cooling off period(is it business days or actual days)?
With what 3 weeks left until the end of the season, I still live in hope of the big L :greengrin
Thanks in advance.
Lastly, FFS let's hope our team turn up on Sunday and get stuck right in tae them
The 20 day cooling period ends on Sunday but as it's not a working day i'd presume it'd now take place on the Monday.Quote:
Originally Posted by s2hart
The value of that old bank building might just rise a little once the council does that Ģ60,000 study for redevelopment it announced a day or so before the first CVA vote. A spectacular coincidence but there we go.Quote:
Originally Posted by s2hart
I hear that due to neglect it is a complete wreck inside.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLake
Just UBIG's other Edinburgh asset the PBS. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by WindyMiller
When is the Micro Wave test being done ?
The UBIG cooling off period is now finished I believe, so anytime in the next couple of weeks I assume. The frozen shares will almost certainly not be an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Weststandwanab
Good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Weststandwanab
Good answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by #FromTheCapital
Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Quietly and childishly giggling to myself.
No statement from BDO yet after this cooling off period?
Possibly bad news?
Bit premature I would have thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by EK_Hibs
As King Kenny used to say maybees aye maybees naw.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Omg we could sure do with an Alex Cropley right now. I would even settle for a Willie Murray or a Kenny Davidson or a John Hazel. All the later players were bit players at ER but would walk into the team now. As for Butcher great players dont always make even half-decent managers.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
:tee hee:Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaHiberņa
Untidy mice? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by WindyMiller
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by VivaHiberņa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Possibly, but hopefully the poor we things had a flotilla to get around in. :agree: