Printable View
No de facto about it. They owe a huge amount of money with no plan or means to repay it, they openly admit to needing charity payments to cover their day to day operating costs and have no prospect of raising cash against their assets. That's not a viable business in any sense of the word and the SPL are burying their heads .Quote:
Originally Posted by PapillonVert
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon
Thanks add that to the £57.8 million and we now have £65.7 million. Rapidly approaching that £70 million number!
The Kaunas payment is the real sham one, and needs highlighting imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon
Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
Yes that probably came from Ukio Bankas as loan through UBIG to Kaunas. That makes the total real debt Hearts have run up £68.6 million. Yes £70 million real debt was a good estimate! Scandalous.
Agree. Wouldn't it help take the heat out of this debate if, since its the yams we are talking about, we substituted Janitor with Proctologist? Apologies to any proctologists who are looking in but it does seem a more yammish choice given their circumstances and preferences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Alf R
Despite what he is saying publically Fedetovas obviously knew what was happening with Ubig and he knws the situation with Hearts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo_1875
I am certain that with the aid of contacts, ex board members, Lithuanian officials palms greased, Romanov himself, knowledge of both Lithuanian and UK insolvency law he will be orchestrating all the factors within his cotrol and probably pulling a few strings of others with control in other crucial areas so that Hearts will get as soft a landing as possible and end up at new owners at a cheap rate.
Nae probs,I was in a bit of a grump yesterdayQuote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
I believe its worth very little due to the fact it sits next to the distillery and chemical plant and housing permision would not get granted.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyB_70
Sorry, I'm still not hearing you.Quote:
Originally Posted by desantos0773
Is the £10m loan from UKIO to HMFC secured? It could be important.
I assume there is a growing number of us thinking that the £10m loan is now unsecured as to give them the power to hold all the voting aces in a CVA. Please tell me i am wrong.:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
According to Fedotovas and the note in the accounts the £10m is unsecured, but that doesn't appear to tie in with what's been lodged at Companies House and makes a nonsense of the £6.8m specified as transferred security back in December. My best guess now is that it's not secured.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
As you say, £10m unsecured debt due to UBIG would give them the casting vote in a CVA so it is potentially important if HoMFC themselves go into administration - they could actually come out of it again.
Great article in the Scottish Daily Mail (no link) - the first one I have seen getting right to the core of their problems - based around last night's AGM.
Three articles covering 2 pages with headings 'Fans accept Gorgie grief', 'Fedotovas warns of worthless shares', 'Hearts ask fans to fill £2.5m gap'. Worth nipping out to get one!
Where "them" = the Lithquidators. Not necessarily going to be Yam-favourable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treadstone
Reminder: Yam accounts are here http://www.scribd.com/doc/140824200/...counts-2011-12
I'm sure Cav will do proper analysis but in the meatime there are 2 relevant bits that I can see:
Under Note 11 (amounts falling due within 1 year):
Under Note 24 (post balance sheet events):Quote:
During the year the balance owed to UAB Ukio Bankas Investicine Grupe was secured by a standard security over Tynecastle Stadium and a floating charge across the assets of the company. Since the year end these securities have been satisfied and replaced with new securities as explained in note 24.
Quote:
Since the year end £15.0 milion of debt due to the company's parent company UAB Ukio Bankas Investicine Grupe has been transferred to AB Ukio Bankas. This debt now falls due for repayment in full on 31 December 2015 and attracts interest of 4.0% per annum payable quarterly. In addition, the security held by UAB Ukio Bankas Investicine Grupe over Tynecastle Stadium has been transferred to AB Ukio Bankas. AB Ukio Bankas also holds a floating charge across the assets of the company and a share pledge agreement in relation to 29.9% of the company's share capital. AB Ukio Bankas entered administration in February 2013.
I assume the post you refer to is this one:Quote:
Originally Posted by desantos0773
The approach he describes is the only one that I can see makes any practical sense and makes the SPL's verdict look very questionable. I'm going to take a lot of convincing that the SPL got it right.Quote:
Originally posted by Some peh muncher
PICKED THIS UP FROM THE HERALD ONLINE FROM A PHIL LAWRENCE WHO IS BASED IN LITHUANIA!! Very, very, very interesting and I "think" this will come down to a similar vote to last year between "money" and "sporting integrity"
What has repeatedly been missed and never explored to any degree is the attitude with which the legal system treats defaulting companies in Lithuania. The country has a codified civil law legal system which, although based on some Western models, is maturing as a system in its own rights. The very suggestion that a company which has requested to be declared as insolvent would NOT be declared so is to completely ignore the law of that land. And clutch at utterly non-existent straws.
In Eastern European business circles it is the norm to try to walk away from debt or financial delinquency and the very fact that UBIG has requested insolvency illustrates that those at the helm have been completely backed into a corner and have no other escape route. It is a 100% certainty that there is no way back for UBIG, but frankly anyone who paid the slightest bit of attention to the company's conduct over the past years would have known that t be the case. After Snoras Bankas hit the buffers it was simply a matter of time before Ukio Bankas and UBIG did similar.
In terms of the Lithuanian process the insolvency of UBIG is done and dusted - the only imponderable is the timetable.
But what strikes me as the oddest thing is that none of the Scottish newspapers or other media outlets have picked up the phone and engaged with Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (both with offices in Edinburgh and the latter has been Ukio's own auditor) or other international auditors which all have offices in Lithuania. A couple of calls in that direction would confirm what I have outlined above. Instead we have input from people like Ian Murray who frankly seems not to give two hoots about Lithuanian due process and plays to his constituency as the saviour of Hearts when the long and the short of it is that he has not added anything factual to the debate. The media has been as guilty as any party in clouding the issue here.
Get quotes from the auditing firms who deal with this stuff every day of every week of every month and end the confusion about the "is it or isn't it" insolvency event.
As for the SPL's decision on Monday, what price a postponement to a later date?
Well seen you're not a lawyer! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
As per the Huns, I think the SPL has been frantically scrabbling around looking for new ways not to implement its own rules. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
not the Hearts to UBIG but the UBIG to Ukio Bankas leg is by on the claim Ukio Bankas have on Heart's shares as security of loans to UBIG that they made on to Hearts. Hearts may be better to go into administration before UBIG declared bankrupt to stop the administrators of Ukio Bankas claiming the shares and then disposing of the club. If they did this all the would loose is Tynecastle as this is secured to Ukio Bankas for £15m loan made directly to Hearts.
You believe wrong - Tynecastle was valued at £20 million for housing when Cala were going to deal with the pieman. That was at the top of the market, so it will be less now - but not that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogsy23
We need a bespoke version of Excel, with new IF calculations for 'Vlad friendly' versus 'Lith-man/woman-on-the-street friendly'. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I posted this in post #12680 in this thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by gogsy23
See the report here. They are relying on the planning department allowing a relaxation, but considering the CEC managed to get planning for the redevelopment of the Tynecastle High School based on the same analysis, then I'd imagine they wouldn't have many grounds for a rejection.Quote:
the report produced for HoMFC and the council states:
"Under this site specific risk assessment of the ethanol storage, the majority of the site falls out with the consultation zones arising from a major event in the ethanol storage tanks. Our assessment concludes that the effects of a major accident hazard in the ethanol storage tanks to be acceptable and should not therefore place a restriction on any re-development of the majority of the site. It is recommended that the club officials discuss the findings of this report with the local planning authority."
Basically, whilst the exclusion zone covers most of Tynecastle at present, this is based on the zone being taken from the edge of the distillery site, and not the specific risk within the distillery site (the ethanol tanks) if the zone is taken from the risk within the distillery site, then the majority of Tynecastle is out with the exclusion zone and could be redeveloped for any use. This could be used by a developer to support any development they wanted. At the time of this report, HoMFC themselves stated that the site would be worth around £8m-£10m on the open market, so I would imagine the administrator of UKIO will be looking to fully satisfy the £6.8m security they have over the ground. The FOH or whoever wishes to bid will have to come up with at least that much to get the club.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gogsy23
Correct... There's a thread on keekback where one of the FOH bod's says they commissioned a valuation at the tail end of last year and it came in around £6.5-7 million..... oh and as an aside he also put to bed the "no chance" of getting housing permission bit as well. The document I saw quoted was really clear in that the issue is with space/clearance around one particular chemical storage tank and that only impacts a small corner of the site which would most likely be used as soft landscaping or residents parking in any case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberal Hibby
Also (I should really keep a track of all these when I spot them so it would be easier to link to it :-( ) ...... while no official planning application was made at the time, HoMFC/CALA did get a letter from the council saying there'd be no issues with a change of use planning application (do they call it a letter of comfort or summat?) ..... pieman produced it at the time to show the bid was serious etc etc....
It suited them to get as much as they could for it back then and the council were happy to help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Alf R
Now they're talking it down as they want to buy the whole lot, debt free, for this mythical £2m figure they keep repeating.
That piece of land will be very attractive to a property developer, even if it does mean sitting on it for a few years while emotions die down before building. We're still not far off the bottom of the market and there's money to be made from it in the medium term.
The SPL have no powers to do anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onion
Am I right in thinking that the SPL left themselves a bit of room to still apply the 18 point deduction this season, rather than hit them with 15 points next season? It's obvious that they're not going to see out next season.
Further to that can two separate admin deductions be applied ? Seems a bit unfair but well c'est la vie and all that.:cbQuote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
Cheers.:aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
In my haste I was thinking 'them' as 'them' and not the liquidators. The laughable 'political angle' :faf: will surely be trotted out again. I have no such worries on that score.
Wouldn't be ironic of STF took an interest in the PBS development opportunity and agreed a deal with the Lith Admins for the land. £5 or 6 M would be a reasonable starting bid, and maybe a little payback for the way he was shafted by the Yam Council when he tried to buy the land behind ER :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
You probably read this at some pointQuote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
"HEARTS will begin next season in the Scottish Premier League – but with a 15-point deduction if majority shareholder UBIG is declared insolvent.
That is the all-but-certain position faced by the Tynecastle club after an SPL board meeting earlier today ruled that UBIG had yet to suffer an “insolvency event”.
The board left itself the option of reconsidering the situation in the unlikely situation of further evidence being unearthed about UBIG’s current standing in Lithuanian law. Crucially, however, if it were to have an effect on this season’s league table, that evidence would have to relate to events which occurred before the last SPL fixtures were played at the weekend. Under rules adopted last summer, Hearts would be docked a third of last season’s points total of 51 (the figure of 17.3 would be rounded up to 18) if they or a parent company were deemed to have become insolvent before the end of the season."
from the Hootsmon .... http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...tion-1-2937144
There's a very good point about the recent share issue been raised on the PM board.
They've been saying for months that the share certificates were about to be sent out, and that news has mostly come out through their pal Barry. However, they're now saying that the process couldn't be completed until yesterday's AGM was out of the way and only now can they work towards sending them out.
So either Barry has been told a pack of lies by Hearts knowing full well that he would print them, or Barry himself is in on it and knew that what he was printing was a load of nonsense.
If it's the former then any journalist with any balls whatsoever would be on the phone to David Southern right after the AGM asking why he'd been used in that way. If it's the latter then his boss should fire him right away.
Maybe someone could tweet him and ask.
As mentioned above, under Lith law what UBIG has done is effectively an insolvency event. It's just not how it's done here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Alf R
The SPL should get them out the league before they implode or we'll have 11 teams completing next season. And that would also be of more help to Hearts as 9 months with no game whatsoever would be a huge obstacle for them.
Having said that, I'm warming to having a Hearts team mostly made up of the kids that finished 9th in the U20 league, less £1m of their best talent (that's a joke btw), trying to make up a 15 point deficit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poolman
The Janitor comment, I would presume, is because Ralph Topping claimed not to know whether it was someone authorised to register UBIG as insolvent or 'just a janitor' (his words). If there is actually no-one running the affairs at UBUG, then it must have been said Janitor that forced through Rodney's re-appointment.
This shows the SPLs decision on Monday, and its so-called 'investigative process', for the farce that it actually was.