Is it against the law to lie? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell The Dug
Printable View
Is it against the law to lie? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell The Dug
That's exactly my point. No one knows, Yams have a proven history of telling porkies from building a shiny new stadium to signing World Cup stars & yet in this case we ( or some posters ) seem to be accepting their word that contracts have been amended - why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Twa Cairpets
Why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by brog
If there is a doubt, I would have thought that PFA Scotland, for one, would have been informed. They, in turn, would have advised the SPL.
Much as we would like it to be otherwise, the absence of any evidence to the contrary suggests that there is no case to answer.
Personally, I'd prefer to hang the Hearts for stuff that they have done, rather than for stuff that we think, or hope, they might have done. (a phrase I often alluded to in the HunsInMeltdown thread)
Because the players, who have complained about non payment in the past, also say their contracts were amended.Quote:
Originally Posted by brog
It would be hugely improper for the SPL to say "yes, we have received all the correct paper work from Hearts". If its all ok, then frankly its got SFA (see what I did there :greengrin) to do with anyone else. What right would the SPL have to talk about the private business arrangements of one of their clubs unless they were in breach?Quote:
Originally Posted by brog
I agree with CWG. They'll get rogered for stuff that they have done, lets not worried about the might'ves or could'ves
For a company to say the wages of there employees have been paid when its not the truth has to be against the law surely?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If it ever was to be can i be the first to suggest arresting those that described Ed de Graaf as a box to box footballer....in fact can we lock up anyone who referred to him as a footballer !Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I think you have this the wrong way round, I'm suggesting they haven't done something, ie physically amended contracts. I have absolutely no doubt the players verbally agreed a wage deferment but IMO ( & that's all it is ) the "contract amendment" phrase was dreamt up & agreed by all concerned to get Yams off the hook re the new regulations. It's interesting that Dunfermline ( who obviously are not governed by SPL rules ) have not had the need for any "contract amendments" despite being in a fairly similar situation to Yams.Quote:
Much as we would like it to be otherwise, the absence of any evidence to the contrary suggests that there is no case to answer.
That's pretty much been Yams' response to us for the last 3 years in which we've been forecasting their financial demise! :wink: There was no apparent evidence they were engaging in a Lithuanian tax scam either but they've agreed to pay £1.5mm to make it go away.
Personally, I'd prefer to hang the Hearts for stuff that they have done, rather than for stuff that we think, or hope, they might have done. (a phrase I often alluded to in the HunsInMeltdown thread)
I do believe however that if Yams default again in near future, as I believe they will, the whole sorry facade will collapse & SPL will be forced to take action.
Em, because Yams were in breach, that's why they're still under a transfer embargo. Yams have no problem in boasting when they finally pay tax, why would there be a problem in saying they've provided contract amendments to the SPL? Maybe it's my ( far too ) many years of audit experience that makes me cynical but I remain surprised at netters' willingness to accept Yam statements at face value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Twa Cairpets
On the other hand I do have a Nigerian friend who would like to give you £5mm if you only provide your bank a/c details!! :greengrin
Definitely. I want him in a hopeless squad that we can turn over at will. Hope his 51 numbered Hearts shirt he'll undoubtedly ask for keeps him warm...Quote:
Originally Posted by Treadstone
I was speaking to a woman from B&Q the other day and she was saying that her contract was to work x amount hours between Monday and Friday. She was called into the office and told that her contract had now been amended and that she would now have to work weekends. If this is true then it seems that your contract can be amended without your permission or approval. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
Quote:
Originally Posted by brog
Do contract amendments have to be physically amended?Quote:
Originally Posted by brog
I doubt it, but if they do, I can write an amendment to be inserted into a contract in 30 seconds.
I have a contract. If it was to be amended in my favour, I'd want it signed and sealed in triplicate.
If it was me agreeing to a wage deferment, I wouldn't give a monkey's if it was written in the snow, even less so if my representatives were aware of the agreement.
Sorry, brog, but you're clutching at straws a bit here.
It might sound daft, but the ability to alter the contract must have been agreed to in the original contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish
God I'm getting sick and tired of this!
Hearts are like a pish soaked jakey tramp hanging around at the bus stop begging for a bus fare home - and as soon as some gullible simpleton's give them enough cash they are straight back in the offy for another tin of Special Brew!
The SFA have taken the step of barring them from the off-license until they've paid for their tab - but as soon as the ban is lifted they are straight out there begging again and pishing it all up the wall - they are a pain in everybody's erse and a blot on the landscape and it's high time they were lifted for vagrancy and banished to a more suitable environment (Div3 anyone?) where they can pish themselves into their own jakey hole without making a public nuisance of themselves at every turn :grr:
Sorry but you're missing the point, it's SPL rules which need to be complied with. Rule A6.21, only introduced in July this year states, Any club which shall fail to pay any sum due by it to a player under that Player's Contract of Service - - - - - shall be in breach of these rules. Yams have of course already been found to be in breach of these rules.Quote:
Sorry, brog, but you're clutching at straws a bit here.
The only way Yams can now fail to pay players ( which they acknowledge has occurred again ) & comply with that rule is to have each individual contract amended, & probably signed by both parties. As I said originally, unless the amendment was open-ended ( & surely even Yam players are not that daft ) they would probably need an amendment for each player for each wage deferral. Do you honestly think this would have happened? IMO the logistics of this & the speed with which Yams announced the "contract amendments" make such a scenario extremely unlikely.
Again, it's almost certainly in SPL interests ( & probably ours ) to keep Yams afloat for this season. I'm only doubting the mechanics & truth of their own process.
:top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by basehibby
:applause:Quote:
Originally Posted by basehibby
Probably the best description of their situation I've read ha ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by basehibby
If they really needed contracts to be physically amended and signed, they could have done so in seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by brog
Add a clause and sign it.
Here you go.
Amendment to contract:
November 2012 salary will be paid with the salary for December 2012.
Signed: Yam management
Signed: Yam player
Witness: Any Yam.
Date: 70 62 10
:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by basehibby
Haha one of the funniest posts I've read on here and so true at the same time. Perfect analogyQuote:
Originally Posted by basehibby
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by basehibby
got it from very reliable source,The little scrot wouldn't drop his money for the team he so dearly loves.
Fester banging on about signing this nobody in January without the slightest whiff of the financial situation that is going on around him, arrogance personified...
He sounds like he knows as much about the current situation as your average kickbacker.Quote:
Originally Posted by HIBERNIAN-0762
Also talking about getting the players that are out of contract at the end of the season tied up for next season.Quote:
Originally Posted by HIBERNIAN-0762
They are already losing millions a year and they've got a further £500k a year to find for this tax deal they agreed and they're still talking about renewing players contracts :confused:
As unbelievable as it sounds i honestly don't think they realise the **** they are actually in.
Apparently they'll only be buying lesser quality to replace players they sell.
Income
Shares £800k
Sevco £300k
Ticket and bake sales £300k
Total £1.4m
Outgoings
HMRC £450
Wages nov £400k
Wages Dec £400k
Wages Jan £400k
Total £1.65m
Not included other expenses.
Out of money by mid jan?
What law?Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell The Dug
And.... have you considered that they may be telling the truth?
Police, utilities, suppliers and servicing the already sizeable debt they've got?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I think they do bingo but it's the arrogant yam way of course of trying to pretend there's nothing wrong and to my mind pushing the authorities as far as they can as if to say we don't give a toss....God I hate them!Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo70
I'm 31 and they've been over spending my whole life, (i can't really remember the Mercer era but i'm told they overspent then as well) so i just don't think they know any other way.Quote:
Originally Posted by HIBERNIAN-0762
If they really are going to start cutting there cloth accordingly and living within their means they're going to be in for a real shock, it's not an easy thing to do and we've been struggling recently but it's going to be nothing compared to the pain Hearts are going to have to go through. From speaking to even the most reasonable Jambo at my work they still don't seem to grasp the size of the cost cutting they're going to have to go through and even once they've done that the income will likely go down as there team will be worse so it'll keep on getting harder for them.
I think we'll see over the next five years or so who the real 'Big team' in Edinburgh are.
Just had a response by E-mail to my F. O. I. request for information on the outstanding sums for Business Rates and Rental due by HOMFC, and you guessed it, request refused under section 33 Commercial Interests.
" We consider that the release of this information could potentially prejudice the commercial interests of Heart of Midlothian Football Club."
What really pisses me off is they wait until 3 pm on the last day of their window to respond and then say they are not releasing the information. If this had been made clear at the outset I could have had an appeal under way weeks ago.
I smell a giant Rat. Calls will be made in the morning and appeals initiated !
Sounds dodgy mate, keep up the good work!Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Good try anyway. What is the RV of Tynie?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Sorted that for you EH :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by EH6 Hibby
the stadium R V is £ 224,000 with an addition of £ 68,500 for the ticket office they rent from the Council.Total £ 292,500 with the business rate of 45p in the pound, I don't know if their are any discounts for sports grounds etc., but if not their annual charge could be over £130,000 plus whatever the rental they pay for the Council premises.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
What grounds can you appeal on?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Thanks. In the bigger scheme of things, this is not a lot of money for Hearts at around £11k or so per month, so should have been paid.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Obviously they look like they will need to find over £100k or so before March.
If a player was stupid enough to change their contract to only pay me when you can....should the players union even bother about them ? How stupid can a YAM player be ?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Is that what happened?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibeesforever
If it was, and the revised contract wasn't breached, then there would be no need for the union to become involved.
It clearly looks like they have debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Maybe we should be asking our local councillors to investigate?
If they are thinking of going down the Newco route, Vlad will have no intention of paying this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I was thinking of claiming this information was necessary to ensure Hearts were complying with financial fair play rules (doubtful I know) and this information should have been disclosed by HOMFC.
Also will quote precedent in that Glasgow city council released this information earlier this year when an FOI request was made concerning Rangers indebtedness.
Yes, they were in breach, past tense, hence the transfer embargo.Quote:
Originally Posted by brog
Amended contracts would not be a breach under the rules, therefore no need to say anything. If they have provided the SFA with the contracts,and no-one has complained, what business is it of anyones if they've done what they've meant to do?
I'm not accepting anything Hearts say at face value - they've been proven liars for years, but omitting to say anything about something they may or may not have done does not mean they are guilty in this instance. As per CWG, in this instance, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There aren't FFP rules in play yet, so you might be on shaky ground there.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
The second is more reasonable, although of course they'll say "GCC decisions are their decisions.....etc etc."
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The FFP rules apply for granting a Euro License, its whether local taxes are relevant to the rules, but I'm good at blagging. :greengrin
Or perhaps you are a council tax payer and have the right to know that your local authority are being fair and prudent with our money?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Councillor Munro may be worth contacting #friendlyface
Is there another club in the UK where the fans have not made demands to 'sack the board' in a similar situation? Hearts are effectively blackmailing their own fans to cover chronic mismanagement, and the Yams are just taking it. Again and again.Quote:
Originally Posted by poolman
Pathetic.
........ and it's amusing to see that one of their 'legends' is in cahoots with the Liths:Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomoseven
2012 Share Ambassador John Robertson has thanked the fans for their incredible efforts in raising over £800,000 through the Share Offer.
Speaking today to Hearts News, Robbo issued the following statement, preceded by two words: "Thank you".
Article continues
Advertisement
The words above are two of the simplest words in the dictionary and to be honest they do not really come close to the words I would like to convey to each and every person - man, woman and child - who have shown in the last seven weeks exactly what Heart of Midlothian Football Club means to them.
To have raised over £800,000 in that short amount of time is nothing short of miraculous and I personally would like to thank each and every one of you from the bottom of my heart for helping the club to try to navigate itself forward in these difficult times.
Given the financial climate and with Christmas fast approaching, the total is even more remarkable and I know the players, management, board and the staff of Heart of Midlothian FC appreciate everything that YOU the fans have done to keep the club going.
Make no mistake about it, the club was days from closing and the response to the 'Call to Arms' in October was just that and the reaction has been stunning.
We have just over a week to go to the finish of the Share Issue and I urge any fan who is still considering the purchase of shares to come forward before the deadline to help us reach as high a total as possible to keep the club moving forward until the end of the season.
As well as the Share Issue, the response to attending matches buying merchandise and doing fund-raising has been equally incredible and some of the stories of what people have given up to help the club has been hard to put into words and once more I use the simple but heartfelt words: THANK YOU.
We still have a long way to go to reach the goal of getting the club to the end of the season and back to a self- sustainable level and once this Share Issue ends, my official role with the club also comes to a finish but I will, like you, the fans, do all I can to continue to raise funds to help the club that means so much to all of us.
To finish, I appeal once more to anyone who has not, for whatever reason, purchased shares to do so now if they can
We must continue to fight by turning up to games and supporting the club and the team as much as we can and I stand by my statement that, 'as long as I am alive, I will not let this club die'.
I know how important this club is to us all and ask for one final push in 2012.
2013 will bring another set of challenges but those challenges are for another day
Remember, 'together we ARE Heart of Midlothian.' We must stick together now more than ever and fight for OUR future, fight for OUR existence fight, for OUR club
As said at the beginning, there are no words to adequately tell you how I feel about the response to this campaign but THANK YOU from the bottom of my heart.
Has Robertson disclosed how much he has contributed to the cause?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
cringeworthy, f/kin cringeworthy.
I truly feel sad for Mr Robertson. Aligning himself so closely to the clear Charlatan, Mr Romanov.Quote:
Originally Posted by monktonharp
It was John Robertson who said : The board had told him everything...... the very next day, he admitted that he knew nothing of the winding up order!
A great striker, but the Hearts fans have had very poor leadership and advice.
Surely a fans protest and forcing Mr Romanov to either honour his underwriting guarantee or sell the club would have been better.
As it stands, young Edinburgh Hearts children have been robbed of their Xmas money by Robbo and Romanov. Mr Rrobrrtson is now also fully culpable when the end comes.
Is Mr Robertson really a big Hiibby ?
I feel a wee Sandie Shaw number coming on after reading wee Robbo's desperate plea........
And there was me thinking "Black on Maroon" was Ian's autobiography (mainly consisting of pictures right enough!)
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20444436
Wee fat Robbo is fast becoming the Ally McCoist of this whole sorry saga. Was once even slightly likeable but now is just whoring himself to the corrupt cause
I'll be intrigued to see how many of their favoured players turn up in the cringeworthy list they are planning to churn out...Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
Mcglynn in the paper saying its morally wrong for them to sign players in January without releasing any.
Since when did hearts give a **** about morals?
Robbo is a prick, they wanted to raise £1.79m but have not even reached half that amount, yet its high fives all round?
Its like frolicking with a salamander street hooker, it wont even touch the sides.
Surely as someone interested in buying shares this info should be available to you ? I know F all about this kinda thing but say you we're going to " invest" a large sum in them the council have a duty of care to provide the facts. All that said I think you have your answer as paying the bills on time could not harm commercial interests could it ?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
For fear of repeating myself it just amazes me how these yam fud fans just can't take it in that it was the board that got them in to this mess and yet as a previous poster has said not a peep of protest from any of them, blind, stupid, deluded, brainless the lot of them, and to think they won both world wars too.....:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocopops1875
Its the amount they are outstanding that is the issue for me. If its less than £ 20 or £ 25 thousand its not really that shocking in today's financial climate, but if it is 2 or 3 times that total and if they have had any past debts written off, I think their should be an almighty outcry.
However, without the numbers mere speculation is easily ignored.
Does the Council reply "potentially prejudice the commercial interests of Heart of Midlothian Football Club", not just accept that they are not up-to-date with with payments, if they were not owing any money the answer would be simple, "They are up to date with payments".Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
If they are owing the council any money, then that money is owed to each and every citizen living within the council area, this is money that would have been earmarked to be spent on schools, road repairs, libraries, child care, home helps, street cleaners and many many more services.
I know that if the normal citizen is late with payment, the council will quickly follow up and threaten penalties.
If the council will not provide the information to ordinary citizens, it should be able to advise it's councillors on the situation, therefore I would suggest that we all attend our local councillor's surgeries and ask them what the situation is, even Jambos should be asking the same questions, otherwise HoMFC is lying to them as well.
To help, I have provided a link to your local councillor and the details of surgery times.
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/councillors/name
It will be interesting to see what replies we get back.
To be honest I'm not surprised that the information was not made available to you as in my opinion your request was outwith the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. To my knowledge the intention of the Act was ensure that the Public had open access to the business of the Public Authorities (ECC in this case) but not the indebtedness of Companies or individuals to the Council itself. If we knew that the Yams had fallen into arrears with their business rates or Police bills then it would be legitimate for an individual to request information as to the extent of the action the Council had instigated to recover the outstanding debt. You may wish to download the Council's Publication Scheme for further information as to the types of information which can be made available.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Councillor Whyte is a good Hibee - and on the Police Board too - wonder if they've paid them up to date ?
I have to say that this was my understanding of FOI. I'm not an expert but, if access to HMFC's rates account was made available to Joe Public, then that would suggest that my own account with the Council could also be made available. Sod that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Bear
For me, though, what would be more interesting would be, if they are in arrears with their Rates, what action has been taken by CEC to recover that amount? Indeed, has there been any favour shown to HMFC over other businesses? That, for me, is what FOI is about.
Keep up the pressure, though, GG. You might shake something from the tree yet. :agree:
So CWG are you suggesting the wording of the question could be changed to get an answer ?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Like I say, I'm not an expert, but it's probably what we really want to know :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by cocopops1875
I suspect the reply from CEC would be along the same lines as the one GG already has. However, it's more likely to get a Councillor or two (preferably those who have no leanings either way) to sit up and take notice.
Anyone else hearing that they haven't been paid yet today? I know it's not the 16th today, but it is the last banking day before then.
You have to stop listening to those voices, Mikey. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
If they haven't been paid today, they're not in breach. If they get paid on Monday, the SPL will surely say it's unreasonable to take action, as the pay date was at the weekend (which is only fair).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
If, however, they haven't been paid by close of business on Monday.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
what an incredibly idiotic thing to say, seriously, do they put extra additives in the water over gorgi way :jamboclow:crazy:
Spoke to the FOI case officer and got the usual bull*****.Don't think she appreciated my point that considering all the other unpaid tax bills,winding-up orders and unpaid wages, HOMFC 's commercial interest cannot be damaged any more.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Anyway request for a decision review has been sent.
I think you are being a bit unfair there BH. To raise £800,000 in that time is a good effort IMO. Just because they didn't raise half the amount they WANTED to raise doesn't mean it wasn't a good effort by their fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs
I still don't think raising the £2m they originally asked for would save them long term as even the wee overweight striker admitted that this was just to get them to end of this season, then the same fight starts again basically, but fair play to the fans who have thrown their cash away by 'investing' in Vlads rip off.
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by MB62
Said it before on here, but I think it was a superb effort. Just such a shame :greengrin that it was misguided.
Think he's looking for McGlynns Joab!!! ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by #FromTheCapital
If they are due to be paid on the 16th then that is Sunday. So technically if they don't get paid till Monday then the wages are late. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Just been on beggingbowl.co.uk and seen a few wee moans that its Xmas and the shop has hardly got any home tops and no away tops and no more due in.... Not much more to be made out if merch then
Suppliers would likely want paid up front as they wouldn't give them credit. Such things happened to the various retail chains that have collapsed in recent years.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibeesdude
I work for a BIG company, we always get paid before midnight on the last banking day before due date. That's how BIG and almost all small companies operate. Now as the Yams keep telling us they are the big team then I'd fully expect that to be backed up by the players being paid in full today :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish
However.... If it. Doesnt happen today
Then
1) they ain't no big team
2) what changes between now and Monday to let them pay then? (assuming its paid of course!)
I don't think anything will be said or done if they aren't paid till Monday. However, you would have thought that, irrespective of how much or how little they have begged, stolen or borrowed, given Fedotovas's confidence that December's wages would be paid, they would have gone out of their way to deal with it today, even just to give a bit of assurance to their players and supporters that things are kind of normal and looking up. If the money is there and they wait till Monday, they are only piling more dirt on their already severely tarnished reputation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish
In the interests of a balance here, I also work for a big company and as I said in an earlier post I get paid on the 15th of the month. When it falls on a weekend, sometimes I get paid on the Friday, sometimes on the Monday. I do not however go complaining to HR if it is not paid on the Friday. Just checked my bank account online and been paid!!!!! Baisturds!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Alf R
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius
We'll have none of that round here :tsk tsk:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius
McGlynn's latest ramblings on the BBC site says they are to be paid today...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottB
Wages this month was never going to be an issue with the share issue home games etc.
What gets me is that next months wages will probably be late again with very little home games and no share cash coming in. So what happens is they get another transfer embargo starting in Feb. That can't be right surely?
In fairness, and extra 3 days in the bank would yield around £15 interest at the Bank of England base rates, so Hearts are just being financially prudent. Your misunderstanding of Big Club finance doesn't mean that this master stroke of fiscal sense is anything other than a clear indication of their newly founded even-keel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Yamanomics. If you're insane, it makes sense.
Don't worry Mikey, it will never catch on. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twa Cairpets
See what you've started :grr:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius
:agree: Even tho' they can still sign free agents, a signing embargo outwith transfer windows is inappropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell The Dug
They are discussing this overby:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/116814601/Hearts-466-06-12-12
Something about Hearts, Ubig and Ukio.
Maybe one of our legal/fiscal experts could make sense of it.
Some of the Yams are uneasy about it.
According to the paper, it is being done under section 410 and 466 of the companies act 1985.
410,-(1) The following provisions of this Chapter have effect
unless
for the purpose of securing the registration in Scotland of
registered.
charges created by companies.
(2)
Every charge created by a company, being a charge to
property or any part of it is conferred by the charge, void
against the liquidator and any creditor of the company unless
the prescribed particulars of the charge, together with a copy
(certified in the prescribed manner to be a correct copy) of the
instrument (if any) by which the charge is created or evidenced,
are delivered to or received by the registrar of companies for
registration in the manner required by this Chapter within 21
days after the date of the creation of the charge.
Companies Act 1985 c. 6 277
(3) Subsection (2) is without prejudice to any contract or PART XII
obligation for repayment of the money secured by the charge ; CHAPTER II
and when a charge becomes void under this section the money
secured by it immediately becomes payable.
(4) This section applies to the following charges-
(a) a charge on land wherever situated, or any interest in
such land (not including a charge for any rent, ground
annual or other periodical sum payable in respect of
the land, but including a charge created by a heritable
security within the meaning of section 9(8) of the Conveyancing
and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970), 1970 c. 35.
( B) a security over the uncalled share capital of the company,
© a security over incorporeal moveable property of any
of the following categories-
-W the book debts of the company,
(ii) calls made but not paid,
(iii) goodwill,
(iv) a patent or a licence under a patent,
(v) a trademark,
(vi) a copyright or a licence under a copyright,
(d) a security over a ship or aircraft or any share in a ship,
and
(e) a floating charge.
(5) In this Chapter " company " (except in section 424)
means an incorporated company registered in Scotland ; " registrar
of companies " means the registrar or other officer performing
under this Act the duty of
Copied from Kickback. Anyone know what it means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sounds like the creation or alteration of a charge (ie security) over the company's assets, although it's really not clear from that.
From memory, UBIG currently have security over everything.....
Nope not got a Scoobie, it's all double Lith to me :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
What are the jambos that are uneasy about it saying it means?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Does this include submarines ? :greengrin
They are genuinely celebrating about there players staff etc being paid... Saying we will be raging etc, how's this? Also seen one saying that 'Hibs going in debt an were going out' hahhaha got to laugh!
They're saying - only half jokingly I suspect - is that it looks scary and someone on Hibs Net will sort it out for them. I suspect CG and CWG have a wee fan club growing over by.Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo70
Also - they are celebrating the (alleged) payment of wages, even thanking Mr Romanov. Beyond freakin deluded.
Have they actually been paid yet? Or are they all just going by what festers uglier twin said yesterday?
If they hadn't it would have been leaked by now and we'd know about it IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by #FromTheCapital
I can't see anything about actual payment and it seems they are celebrating McGlynn's and Fedotovas's 'confidence' that payment will be made. Again, I can't understand why they can't just say that the wages WILL be paid.Quote:
Originally Posted by #FromTheCapital