Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

Not sure, hard to keep track but i am confident all hearings/disciplnary meetings will take place unless as i have said yams go kaput. Hard for any regulatory body to expedite things as fast as rival fans want. Trust the process.:aok:

---

Surely you're ****ing joking Tread?:confused: Wouldn't trust the SFA to organise a disciplinary hearing for Adolf Hitler. Their 'sanctions' for Rangers were a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angus hibee

Informed today that Hearts have moved their registered office from Tynecastle to City Point Haymarket. Mean anything ?

---

Do they want to be nearer their clock / war memorial? Are we nearer the time where the City will want some sort of memorial to the team formerly known as heart of midlothian? If so this is the way to do it on the cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Surely you're ****ing joking Tread?:confused: Wouldn't trust the SFA to organise a disciplinary hearing for Adolf Hitler. Their 'sanctions' for Rangers were a joke.

---

I wasn't commenting on the sanctions/punishments just the timetable of events. Should any disciplinary hearing by the SFA/SPFL fail to take place then fair enough have a pop. I'm just not buying into the 'swept under the carpet and never heard of again' reasoning. Last time I looked there was a 'new' team plying its trade in the bottom division of Scottish fitba' at the time and no Rangers in the top flight.

FWIW I thought whatever the regulatory bodies done concering Rangers someone would have found fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

I wasn't commenting on the sanctions/punishments just the timetable of events. Should any disciplinary hearing by the SFA/SPFL fail to take place then fair enough have a pop. I'm just not buying into the 'swept under the carpet and never heard of again' reasoning. Last time I looked there was a 'new' team plying its trade in the bottom division of Scottish fitba' at the time and no Rangers in the top flight.

FWIW I thought whatever the regulatory bodies done concering Rangers someone would have found fault.

---

Highlighted above was absolutely nothing to do with the SFA.

Nothing will be swept under the carpet by the SFA but a 'punishment that isn't a punishment' will be issued.

As for the issue raised by previous posters about non-payment of wages, that is an issue for the SPL who conveniently now no longer exist. This oppurtunity to 'sweep under the carpet and never be heard of again' will not be missed imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

I wasn't commenting on the sanctions/punishments just the timetable of events. Should any disciplinary hearing by the SFA/SPFL fail to take place then fair enough have a pop. I'm just not buying into the 'swept under the carpet and never heard of again' reasoning. Last time I looked there was a 'new' team plying its trade in the bottom division of Scottish fitba' at the time and no Rangers in the top flight.

FWIW I thought whatever the regulatory bodies done concering Rangers someone would have found fault.

---

That's the trouble, the SPL you can kind of understand ****ing about with their rules to try and protect the commercial interests of the league, but the SFA is meant to be the governing body and they should have got on and governed.

They really tied themselves in knots over trying to pretend NewHuns == OldHuns. Since OldHuns was carrying the transfer embargo penalty, NewHuns had to take it on ... but NewHuns had lost most of the players when they didn't TUPE (because, guess what, NewHuns != OldHuns) which left the SFA in a nightmare of their own making and their chosen way out was to defer the embargo until after the window. Farcical.

Life would have been a whole lot simpler for them if they'd just had the balls to front up and say Rangers are dead, we are now accepting an application for membership from the new Rangers. Other than protecting the sensibilities of Huns, I really don't see what they've gained from the charade? The Hun massive would've followed the new club anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

That's the trouble, the SPL you can kind of understand ****ing about with their rules to try and protect the commercial interests of the league, but the SFA is meant to be the governing body and they should have got on and governed.

They really tied themselves in knots over trying to pretend NewHuns == OldHuns. Since OldHuns was carrying the transfer embargo penalty, NewHuns had to take it on ... but NewHuns had lost most of the players when they didn't TUPE (because, guess what, NewHuns != OldHuns) which left the SFA in a nightmare of their own making and their chosen way out was to defer the embargo until after the window. Farcical.

Life would have been a whole lot simpler for them if they'd just had the balls to front up and say Rangers are dead, we are now accepting an application for membership from the new Rangers. Other than protecting the sensibilities of Huns, I really don't see what they've gained from the charade? The Hun massive would've followed the new club anyway.

---

I completely agree with everything you say. The SFA should have drawn a line and said Rangers are no more, history is gone along with all the debts. But they couldn't bring themselves to do that. However, I think they are playing it cagey with hertz to wait and see if they can commit suicide rather than the SFA delivering the final nail in the coffin. If they survive until the hearing they will be hit with at least a signing ban until they emerge from administration which hopefully won't be soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

I completely agree with everything you say. The SFA should have drawn a line and said Rangers are no more, history is gone along with all the debts. But they couldn't bring themselves to do that. However, I think they are playing it cagey with hertz to wait and see if they can commit suicide rather than the SFA delivering the final nail in the coffin. If they survive until the hearing they will be hit with at least a signing ban until they emerge from administration which hopefully won't be soon.

---

That part is automatic, it's already verboten to sign a player while in admin. It's possible that that's all they'll get, as the SFA could let them off with a censure or a suspended fine, but given the recent precedents of the Huns (£50K fine) and Pars (6 month embargo) I don't think that's likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

That part is automatic, it's already verboten to sign a player while in admin. It's possible that that's all they'll get, as the SFA could let them off with a censure or a suspended fine, but given the recent precedents of the Huns (£50K fine) and Pars (6 month embargo) I don't think that's likely.

---

Is the hearing to deal with their administration or are there any other offences being taken into account?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

Is the hearing to deal with their administration or are there any other offences being taken into account?

---

The SFA one is just for entering administration.

They also have an outstanding hearing with the SPFL for a "remuneration default", ie. non-payment of wages. No date set for that afaik.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergey

Sorry - but that isn't the case and is wrong.

Ukio have an administrator in place (UAB Valnetas). UBIG, who claimed voluntary insolvency with Kaunas Municipality, is attempting (by accordance with Lithuanian law) to put in an insolvency practitioner of their own choice. This should be known on 24th July and it most certainly isn't the current Ukio administrator. Kaunas Municipality would have to put an injunction in place to prevent UBIG's chosen appointee.

---

Technically UBIG will have a separate admin but because Ukio is almost their sole creditor and UBIG investments using Ukio's loans is almost the entire cause of Ukio's bankruptcy the Ukio admin will be pulling the strings. When you deal with the UBIG admin you will be effectively dealing with the Ukio admin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

That's the trouble, the SPL you can kind of understand ****ing about with their rules to try and protect the commercial interests of the league, but the SFA is meant to be the governing body and they should have got on and governed.

They really tied themselves in knots over trying to pretend NewHuns == OldHuns. Since OldHuns was carrying the transfer embargo penalty, NewHuns had to take it on ... but NewHuns had lost most of the players when they didn't TUPE (because, guess what, NewHuns != OldHuns) which left the SFA in a nightmare of their own making and their chosen way out was to defer the embargo until after the window. Farcical.

Life would have been a whole lot simpler for them if they'd just had the balls to front up and say Rangers are dead, we are now accepting an application for membership from the new Rangers. Other than protecting the sensibilities of Huns, I really don't see what they've gained from the charade? The Hun massive would've followed the new club anyway.

---

:agree: Entirely. The point I was making was about the hearings not the punishments. They'll take place but whether the punishments are enough I too have my doubts. For some on here flogging until death of every jambo is tantamount to escaping unscathed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

:agree: Entirely. The point I was making was about the hearings not the punishments. They'll take place but whether the punishments are enough I too have my doubts. For some on here flogging until death of every jambo is tantamount to escaping unscathed.

---

Anyone hoping for this will be severely disappointed. :greengrin A £50k fine, suspended, or an extended embargo until the next transfer window opens will be the toughest the SFA will get. Utterly pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

:agree: Entirely. The point I was making was about the hearings not the punishments. They'll take place but whether the punishments are enough I too have my doubts. For some on here flogging until death of every jambo is tantamount to escaping unscathed.

---

I don't care what happens to the jambo cretins - they "had their hands tied" after all.

I want that club erased though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Anyone hoping for this will be severely disappointed. :greengrin A £50k fine, suspended, or an extended embargo until the next transfer window opens will be the toughest the SFA will get. Utterly pointless.

---

Disagree with the last part. I expect their squad to struggle even if they all stay fit and Tattoo boy miraculously stays out of trouble. Being able to sign some free agents could potentially make a big difference to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clerriehibs

I don't care what happens to the jambo cretins - they "had their hands tied" after all.

I want that club erased though.

---

For the record Clerrie, me too.

Any spare change ?

http://ianmurraymp.files.wordpress.c...pg?w=416&h=310

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

Any spare change ?

http://ianmurraymp.files.wordpress.c...pg?w=416&h=310

---

Please let them win. :pray::pray:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desantos0773

Admins now likely in discussions with UBIG <snip>

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergey

But here lies a problem - there's no one to liaise with at UBIG as the directors have all resigned and they're awaiting the appointment of an insolvency practitioner, and that in itself is currently under dispute as to who'll represent them.

There is currently no one with any legal clout that can 'sign-off' any proposals, not to mention the fact that the LT government have frozen their assets and the organisation are under investigation.

I'd like to know who you think BDO are in discussions with at UBIG.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desantos0773

The admin of UB is effectively the admin of UBIG. If you talk to UB's admin you are effectively talking to the UBIG admin. <snip>

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergey

Sorry - but that isn't the case and is wrong.

Ukio have an administrator in place (UAB Valnetas). UBIG, who claimed voluntary insolvency with Kaunas Municipality, is attempting (by accordance with Lithuanian law) to put in an insolvency practitioner of their own choice. This should be known on 24th July and it most certainly isn't the current Ukio administrator. Kaunas Municipality would have to put an injunction in place to prevent UBIG's chosen appointee.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desantos0773

UBIG will have a separate admin <snip>

---

You're clearly making this up as you go along, aren't you?

If you're going to post supposed information on a messageboard, at least keep to your original story for some sort of credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergey

You're clearly making this up as you go along, aren't you?

If you're going to post supposed information on a messageboard, at least keep to your original story for some sort of credibility.

---

Calm down chaps. We all want the same thing :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack

Calm down chaps. We all want the same thing :-)

---

Facts (rather than conjecture and supposition) is best, eh!

:aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

I'm reminded here of Alice's Restaurant :D

---

Step right in its around the back
Just a half a mile from the railroad track.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergey

Facts (rather than conjecture and supposition) is best, eh!

:aok:

---

Hey Sergey,get yourself along to Yakbak if you haven't been there or seen it

There's a thread about you :-)

Reading Ian Murray's ( he's an MP you know ) latest drivel and his boasts about FoH having the bank details of 6000 fans got me thinking.

Bet their security is as fail safe as a Vlad cheque, and a third tier hacker would have no problem getting in and syphoning off a couple of months s.o. 's.

Brilliant if it was a Lithuanian gang got in first ! :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

Any spare change ?

http://ianmurraymp.files.wordpress.c...pg?w=416&h=310

---

I see this pic and I feel a Proclaimers mashup coming on...


When I wake up
Well I know I'm gonna be
I'm gonna be the man who
Left hearts in the poo

And I would pledge 500 pounds
And I would pledge 500 more
Just to be the man
Who made Bryan Jackson
Laugh then padlock up the doors

Tynie no more
Gorgie no more
Debt no more
Big team no more...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Reading Ian Murray's ( he's an MP you know ) latest drivel and his boasts about FoH having the bank details of 6000 fans got me thinking.

Bet their security is as fail safe as a Vlad cheque, and a third tier hacker would have no problem getting in and syphoning off a couple of months s.o. 's.

Brilliant if it was a Lithuanian gang got in first ! :greengrin

---

Meanwhile, the Foundation of Hearts has said that it offers the most realistic prospect of providing the club with a healthy future, claiming almost 6000 signed-up direct debits from supporters providing well over £1m per year in additional revenue to repay the purchase price and invest in the club.

More lies i think :agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibees 7062

Meanwhile, the Foundation of Hearts has said that it offers the most realistic prospect of providing the club with a healthy future, claiming almost 6000 signed-up direct debits from supporters providing well over £1m per year in additional revenue to repay the purchase price and invest in the club.

More lies i think :agree:

---

From the year 2011-2012..

On 3 May, Hearts released their financial figures. Showing that they had made a profit of £511,000 and debt had been reduced from £36.1m to £24m. Hearts said that this had come down due to a debt restructuring plan. They also reduced operating costs by 19% to £3.63m and employment costs by 12% to £8.03m. Turnover at the club fell by £1m to £6.9m, this was mainly due to an outsourcing of retail merchandise as well as a lack of significant player sales or European competition.^[23]


Since their st sales are already spent and, even accounting for wage reduction, the £1M will be a drop in the ocean which the submariner has left them in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

Please let them win. :pray::pray:

---

Oh yes. I'm a big fan. George "there's nowt as queer as" Foulkes asked me to back them on that twitter, so I am.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergey

You're clearly making this up as you go along, aren't you?

If you're going to post supposed information on a messageboard, at least keep to your original story for some sort of credibility.

---

if you read up all the detailed analysis - particularly- of Ukio Bankas's problems which I tracked long before they went into administration as the share price plummeted Ukio Bankas problems were down to a whole series of speculative investments that Romanov made through UBIG funded by loans from Ukio Bankas. It is these loans that caused Ukio Bankas to be closed down and made bankrupt. I have posted links and copied reports on this from Bloomberg to this thread over several months.

As I pointed out UBIG is a shell company that Romanov used to wash through loans from Ukio Bankas. That is why it and its directors disappeared into thin air and why Ukio took security of Tynie and HMFC shares as it transferred loans from UBIG to HMFC.

I am not making things up but purely making the logical connection that if Ukio's losses and bankruptcy are down to Romanov's dangerous speculative loans which went through UBIG then UBIG will be Ukios's main debtor. Ukio's administrator will effectively control UBIG. If you are dealing with UBIG's administrator you will be effectively dealing with Ukio's administrator as it lays claim to what is left of value of UBIG's assets.

this logic is much more believable than your assertions to me in private messages that HMFC fate will be decided by Lithuanian law when you have urged me to join the private message board. This is clearly wrong as I have pointed out EU regulation decrees that it is laws of the country that the insolvent company does its business that prevails. That is the UK and Scotland.

Your assertions in another private message that your inside knowledge and contacts in Lithuania you have used to feed journalists in UK is laughable given how far off the pace they have been since Ukio Bankas share price ran into trouble last year all the way to where we are now.


i will continue to post on the public boards sharing my analysis and opinions with all fellow fans on Hibs net using my 20 year plus experience in financial analysis. I suggest you do likewise and put your private contributions up to be shared with us all for critical analysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desantos0773

if you read up all the detailed analysis - particularly- of Ukio Bankas's problems which I tracked long before they went into administration as the share price plummeted Ukio Bankas problems were down to a whole series of speculative investments that Romanov made through UBIG funded by loans from Ukio Bankas. It is these loans that caused Ukio Bankas to be closed down and made bankrupt. I have posted links and copied reports on this from Bloomberg to this thread over several months.

As I pointed out UBIG is a shell company that Romanov used to wash through loans from Ukio Bankas. That is why it and its directors disappeared into thin air and why Ukio took security of Tynie and HMFC shares as it transferred loans from UBIG to HMFC.

I am not making things up but purely making the logical connection that if Ukio's losses and bankruptcy are down to Romanov's dangerous speculative loans which went through UBIG then UBIG will be Ukios's main debtor. Ukio's administrator will effectively control UBIG. If you are dealing with UBIG's administrator you will be effectively dealing with Ukio's administrator as it lays claim to what is left of value of UBIG's assets.

this logic is much more believable than your assertions to me in private messages that HMFC fate will be decided by Lithuanian law when you have urged me to join the private message board. This is clearly wrong as I have pointed out EU regulation decrees that it is laws of the country that the insolvent company does its business that prevails. That is the UK and Scotland.

Your assertions in another private message that your inside knowledge and contacts in Lithuania you have used to feed journalists in UK is laughable given how far off the pace they have been since Ukio Bankas share price ran into trouble last year all the way to where we are now.


i will continue to post on the public boards sharing my analysis and opinions with all fellow fans on Hibs net using my 20 year plus experience in financial analysis. I suggest you do likewise and put your private contributions up to be shared with us all for critical analysis.

---

It's all very complex guys.:greengrin

http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov....%20Insolve.htm