The generic Hearts thread

The latest witterings from Budge - incidentally styled as the CHAIRMAN's update on their website (they can't even get that incontrovertible fact right) states that: "As a fan-owned club we're unable to take on a substantial amount of player debt which the club might not be in a position to honour..." is a shameless attempt to load the guilt onto the players for their current plight.

It also sets up another admin event if the SPFL board finally get this long-drawn out saga concluded this week, and they do drop a league.

Cue then the FoH being painted as the "new saviours" of HMFC mark 3 as they shed another mountain of debt and are hailed by English, Stewart and co as the model for everyone to follow.

It's so transparent it's laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carheenlea

At least Hearts are now acting with a bit of humility and dignity befitting of their status of one of footballs most famous clubs by starting to apologise to those they left high and dry. Well done Hearts :aok

https://mobile.twitter.com/ApologyHearts

---

Brilliant 😁

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scotty Leither

The latest witterings from Budge - incidentally styled as the CHAIRMAN's update on their website (they can't even get that incontrovertible fact right) states that: "As a fan-owned club we're unable to take on a substantial amount of player debt which the club might not be in a position to honour..." is a shameless attempt to load the guilt onto the players for their current plight.

It also sets up another admin event if the SPFL board finally get this long-drawn out saga concluded this week, and they do drop a league.

Cue then the FoH being painted as the "new saviours" of HMFC mark 3 as they shed another mountain of debt and are hailed by English, Stewart and co as the model for everyone to follow.

It's so transparent it's laughable.

---

They're still rabbiting on about being fan-owned ...... but they're still NOT fan-owned.


You're right about the rest, they have no shame whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lord bunberry

This is the bit that I’d like to know more about. Surely they can’t suspend some players wages but still pay others. If they’re going to invoke the article 12 it has to be across the board.

---

This would definitely be included as part of any action against clause 12. Players shouldn't be forced into accepting wage cuts upon the threat of being paid no wages at all. Its almost certain it will be tested in court/tribunal, imo, if Budge carries out her threats.

I see Budge is now appearing to state that the proposed enforced rule of accepting wage cuts is on the basis that she can't make one rule for some and not for others, that it wouldn't be fair on those who accept the new rule of enforced wage cuts.

I doubt clause 12 was formed for clubs to act in this way. It certainly doesn't state that it does. I hope the ones who are suspended when they refuse take it further. Budge is clearly using an ambiguous clause for cost cutting and the non payment of some players only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frankhfc

I see Budge is now appearing to state that the proposed enforced rule of accepting wage cuts is on the basis that she can't make one rule for some and not for others, that it wouldn't be fair on those who accept the new rule of enforced wage cuts.

I doubt clause 12 was formed for clubs to act in this way. It certainly doesn't state that it does. I hope the ones who are suspended when they refuse take it further. Budge is clearly using an ambiguous clause for cost cutting and the non payment of some players only.

---

She also said she has no problem cutting some players wages because she had to pay those players when they were injured 😳

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CapitalGreen

She also said she has no problem cutting some players wages because she had to pay those players when they were injured [emoji15]

---

She's Trump like making it up as she goes along now, in a couple of weeks she'll be saying she always favoured relegating the team at the bottom of the league.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frankhfc

I see Budge is now appearing to state that the proposed enforced rule of accepting wage cuts is on the basis that she can't make one rule for some and not for others, that it wouldn't be fair on those who accept the new rule of enforced wage cuts.

I doubt clause 12 was formed for clubs to act in this way. It certainly doesn't state that it does. I hope the ones who are suspended when they refuse take it further. Budge is clearly using an ambiguous clause for cost cutting and the non payment of some players only.

---

She has a lawyer and three accountants on her board so she should not be short of professional advice. Does she not listen or do they not speak ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

She has a lawyer and three accountants on her board so she should not be short of professional advice. Does she not listen or do they not speak ?

---

I really do think that she’s of the opinion she can say what she wants because she’s the Chairwoman of them.

The air of superiority hangs over her.

The problem is she cannot remember what she said 30 seconds after it was spouted and has contradicted herself on numerous occasions, making her look stupid and inept.

Cannot wait for wages day and how this next episode is going to pan out!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

Come on, this is Hearts we're talking about. It wouldn't be like them to exaggerate, would it?


:dunno:




This is the seating diagram and basically any seats in the purple sections will cost £450.... to watch them play Alloa, Arbroath, Ayr United, etc


https://www.heartsfc.co.uk/uploads/tinymce/TNMap.png

---

Why do they put 'family' in quote marks - it's weird. Is it not their family stand?

This is the man ....
... who’s a Jambo

https://youtu.be/2wBUYG6_YMI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CapitalGreen

She also said she has no problem cutting some players wages because she had to pay those players when they were injured 😳

---

Could certainly form part of a narrative for cost cutting, however, it would, imo, be irrelevant as per clause 12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

She has a lawyer and three accountants on her board so she should not be short of professional advice. Does she not listen or do they not speak ?

---

It wouldn't appear so. I think she spouts stuff that the hearts fans want to hear and for fandangos like Tom English to fawn over her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frankhfc

Agreed. Clause 12 is ambiguous. It clearly lacks definition and guidance. In the event a club refuses to pay a players salary based on clause 12, my instinct is that clause 12 will fail if it is tested in court. The agreed deferral of wages appears to be not only the safe route to go down, but, that it is also the morally correct one.

---

I believe Clause 12 is all about clubs ending the season with the same players it started with, hence the contract being put on hold while the league's on hold. It was simply intended to ensure teams would have all their players until season end, Any players signed between the suspension and the league restarting aren't eligible to play until the new season kicks off. It wasn't expected there would ever be a situation this long or that any team would try to bump players of their wages during the 'down time'

So I've been told anyways...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

I believe Clause 12 is all about clubs ending the season with the same players it started with, hence the contract being put on hold while the league's on hold. It was simply intended to ensure teams would have all their players until season end, Any players signed between the suspension and the league restarting aren't eligible to play until the new season kicks off. It wasn't expected there would ever be a situation this long or that any team would try to bump players of their wages during the 'down time'

So I've been told anyways...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

---

Certainly sounds plausible. Would explain the simplicity of it. Definitely doesn't state it should be used in conjunction of cost reducing contract alterations for some and no wages for others as Dr Budge is. I really hope its tested in a legal capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carheenlea

At least Hearts are now acting with a bit of humility and dignity befitting of their status of one of footballs most famous clubs by starting to apologise to those they left high and dry. Well done Hearts :aok

https://mobile.twitter.com/ApologyHearts

---

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

They're still rabbiting on about being fan-owned ...... but they're still NOT fan-owned.


You're right about the rest, they have no shame whatsoever.

---

I have to disagree, Budgie is a Hear7s fan and owns them so technically they are fan owned 😂

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

I believe Clause 12 is all about clubs ending the season with the same players it started with, hence the contract being put on hold while the league's on hold. It was simply intended to ensure teams would have all their players until season end, Any players signed between the suspension and the league restarting aren't eligible to play until the new season kicks off. It wasn't expected there would ever be a situation this long or that any team would try to bump players of their wages during the 'down time'

So I've been told anyways...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

---

Hertz possibly pushed for clause 12 to be inserted just in case they had world war 3 to win single handed :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carheenlea

At least Hearts are now acting with a bit of humility and dignity befitting of their status of one of footballs most famous clubs by starting to apologise to those they left high and dry. Well done Hearts :aok

https://mobile.twitter.com/ApologyHearts

---

I don't really get that. The author is suggesting that Hearts stiffed this person and that person, but I don't think I've never seen any sort of list naming all the people that Hearts owed money to published. Does such a list exist, with names and how much money was owed to each? :dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaz1875

Hertz possibly pushed for clause 12 to be inserted just in case they had world war 3 to win single handed :confused:

---

Think you've just nailed it. :agree:

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

I don't really get that. The author is suggesting that Hearts stiffed this person and that person, but I don't think I've never seen any sort of list naming all the people that Hearts owed money to published. Does such a list exist, with names and how much money was owed to each? :dunno:

---

I’d like to see that too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kojock

I have to disagree, Budgie is a Hear7s fan and owns them so technically they are fan owned 😂

---

Ok cool. But this means most clubs in Scotland are fan owned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

I don't really get that. The author is suggesting that Hearts stiffed this person and that person, but I don't think I've never seen any sort of list naming all the people that Hearts owed money to published. Does such a list exist, with names and how much money was owed to each? :dunno:

---

Is this what you are looking for?

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/footb...s-full-1566016

If clause 12 is applied and the players contract is suspended until football is resumed, would that not mean they will resume their pay when the football starts again ? ie a deferment? Surely it cannot be used to terminate a contract without compensation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twitter

Hearts Finally Apologise
@ApologyHearts
·
40m
AB Ukio Bankas. Hmmm. Tricky one this. On the one hand Vlad stole from his own bank and owed them £15,488,290 causing the bank to go bust and possibly thousands of people to lose their jobs/pensions. On the other hand we won two cups, so.... swings and roundabouts. #naeharmdone

---

Hahaha comedy gold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waxy

I’d like to see that too.

---

It should be okay to share it, it's Hearts own list, they put it together themselves but I don't think they took out a copyright or anything on it, it's not as if they'll be doing a documentary or anything like that.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Reasons I want hearts to stay up:

1.It will help us financially.
2.I would miss the derby.
3.It also another thing to remind them of we could even make up a wee song about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spike220

Reasons I want hearts to stay up:

1.It will help us financially.
2.I would miss the derby.
3.It also another thing to remind them of we could even make up a wee song about it.

---

Reasons I want Hearts to stay up:

1. Nope, there are no reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zelda

If clause 12 is applied and the players contract is suspended until football is resumed, would that not mean they will resume their pay when the football starts again ? ie a deferment? Surely it cannot be used to terminate a contract without compensation?

---

That would seem to be the reasonable definition of clause 12.

Dr Budge is using it to abdicate Hearts from its responsibility of paying agreed contract salaries.

Hopefully, some of the players will challenge Hearts cost cutting on the back of a pandemic in either court or a tribunal.

:aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

Thanks, just saw after I posted in response to Cav & GG. I understand your thinking but something doesn't add up, see my comments above, given total gate income was under £6m

---

Yes, that's an interesting point, I never noticed that. I'm no VAT Expert but I wonder if the deferred income includes the VAT until the tax point is reached when the new season kicks off? If that's the case then the deferred income number needs to be reduced by 20% to enable an accurate comparison to the gate income number. £4m taken in advance, with total receipts of £6m. That makes more sense. Not sure though.

The same numbers aren't split out in HFC accounts so difficult for us to make an exact comparison using our own numbers.

Edit - if anyone knows if the above VAT point is correct, it would be good to know. If HMFC had taken in £5m of advance season ticket money (including VAT £1m), shown this in deferred income, but left only £0.6m in cash, thus having spent £0.4m of their VAT cash already, before accounting for it to HMRC, then perhaps they are even more of a basket case than we ever thought.

Some Jambos starting to claim victory that a 14-14-14 reconstruction is universally popular and has the support required already.

Doubt it has but also have never had any doubt that they will escape this one way or the other. It's what cockroaches do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacGruber

Some Jambos starting to claim victory that a 14-14-14 reconstruction is universally popular and has the support required already.

Doubt it has but also have never had any doubt that they will escape this one way or the other. It's what cockroaches do.

---

Every premiership club losing money is universally popular? Must be some good drugs floating about Gorgie these days.[emoji106][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zelda

If clause 12 is applied and the players contract is suspended until football is resumed, would that not mean they will resume their pay when the football starts again ? ie a deferment? Surely it cannot be used to terminate a contract without compensation?

---

A deferment ultimately requires payment of the wages due during the period of deferment. A suspension doesn't. I agree with you about termination though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacGruber

Some Jambos starting to claim victory that a 14-14-14 reconstruction is universally popular and has the support required already.

Doubt it has but also have never had any doubt that they will escape this one way or the other. It's what cockroaches do.

---

3 easy "NOs" must be Hibs, Celtic, Ross County I'd imagine. That's enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocteautwin

3 easy "NOs" must be Hibs, Celtic, Ross County I'd imagine. That's enough.

---

So, if the following conditions are met, 4 no's are required.
1. The money distribution model for the top 12 clubs does not change
2. The number of teams within the SPFL remains at 42.

Potentially they could come up with that in a 14 X 3 setup. Really stiffs brora and kelty though, so I don't understand how Ann can say it's "for the good of the game"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocteautwin

Yes, that's an interesting point, I never noticed that. I'm no VAT Expert but I wonder if the deferred income includes the VAT until the tax point is reached when the new season kicks off? If that's the case then the deferred income number needs to be reduced by 20% to enable an accurate comparison to the gate income number. £4m taken in advance, with total receipts of £6m. That makes more sense. Not sure though.

The same numbers aren't split out in HFC accounts so difficult for us to make an exact comparison using our own numbers.

Edit - if anyone knows if the above VAT point is correct, it would be good to know. If HMFC had taken in £5m of advance season ticket money (including VAT £1m), shown this in deferred income, but left only £0.6m in cash, thus having spent £0.4m of their VAT cash already, before accounting for it to HMRC, then perhaps they are even more of a basket case than we ever thought.

---

Deferred income will be net of VAT.

The VAT will be shown in the VAT creditor.

So Hearts are one of the three clubs needed to vote for a general meeting.

So Budge has decided the Deloitte independent investigation isn’t enough and doesn’t meet her super high standards even though she said recently she wasn’t after the removal of SPFL Doncaster and co.

Are we the to assume Budge is so desperate that she is willing to de-rail the motion that got 83% approval and willing to run up costs of 000s for QC (for SPFL which is funded by clubs)? The same Budge that is trying to show horn a reconstruction through that will reduce the price payments per top flight club by c15%?

So is this ALL about:-

- Rangers trying to get a null and void or no champion outcome and as a minimum a tainted title?
- Hearts doing everything they can morally right or not to delay relegation confirmation and hope a new proposal and vote comes through that wipes out the fact that they were the worst team in the league all season?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frankhfc

That would seem to be the reasonable definition of clause 12.

Dr Budge is using it to abdicate Hearts from its responsibility of paying agreed contract salaries.

Hopefully, some of the players will challenge Hearts cost cutting on the back of a pandemic in either court or a tribunal.

:aok:

---

Isn't she just. I wouldn't like to think she'll get away with it. It is THEM tho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Future17

A deferment ultimately requires payment of the wages due during the period of deferment. A suspension doesn't. I agree with you about termination though.

---

But if the time suspended is added onto the contract then the wages will be paid. eg if a 2 year deal stretches to 2 years 2 months with 2 months suspended, surely the player will still end up with 2 years pay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juniper Greens

So, if the following conditions are met, 4 no's are required.
1. The money distribution model for the top 12 clubs does not change
2. The number of teams within the SPFL remains at 42.

Potentially they could come up with that in a 14 X 3 setup. Really stiffs brora and kelty though, so I don't understand how Ann can say it's "for the good of the game"

---

Sure I saw, or heard, a week or so ago changing the number of teams in the Premiership needed 11-1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Deferred income will be net of VAT.

The VAT will be shown in the VAT creditor.

---

OK, thanks. I wonder what else might be in the Deferred Income number? As per Brog, it does seem high compared to their annual gate receipts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocteautwin

OK, thanks. I wonder what else might be in the Deferred Income number? As per Brog, it does seem high compared to their annual gate receipts.

---

Grants towards the new stand?

See Note 1.14

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

Sure I saw, or heard, a week or so ago changing the number of teams in the Premiership needed 11-1.

---

It does

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Oh dear

https://t.co/ZPwvYgIp7w?amp=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Deferred income will be net of VAT.

The VAT will be shown in the VAT creditor.

---

Actually, would the VAT be shown as part of Other taxation and Social Security? That number is only £0.6m which seems low if the VAT is in there and they've taken £5m of gross season ticket sales. Might depend on what their output VAT is although we wouldn't expect that to be too high in the close season. One would also expect the tax number to be higher than £0.6m if VAT, PAYE, Social Security etc is in there. The low Tax creditor number might suggest that the Gross Season ticket number is shown in Deferred Income. Another HMFC Accounting mystery on Hibs.net!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocteautwin

Actually, would the VAT be shown as part of Other taxation and Social Security? That number is only £0.6m which seems low if the VAT is in there and they've taken £5m of gross season ticket sales. Might depend on what their output VAT is although we wouldn't expect that to be too high in the close season. One would also expect the tax number to be higher than £0.6m if VAT, PAYE, Social Security etc is in there. The low Tax creditor number might suggest that the Gross Season ticket number is shown in Deferred Income. Another HMFC Accounting mystery on Hibs.net!

---

That might be the case if you're assuming that all of the Deferred Income is ST sales. But I thought you were saying that it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

Sure I saw, or heard, a week or so ago changing the number of teams in the Premiership needed 11-1.

---

I think what they seemed to be doing was not to change the prize money per place, then it would require a 9-3 majority in favour. In order to get that place 13 and 14 would recieve the same as the current 1 + 2 in the Championship recieves currently and so on down the places. I would highlight the "I think" part....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

Oh dear

https://t.co/ZPwvYgIp7w?amp=1

---

Is that not what they want anyway? To get rid of as many as possible as soon as possible. Hickey is the only one who has any value and funnily enough, he wasn't asked to take a wage cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

Is that not what they want anyway? To get rid of as many as possible as soon as possible. Hickey is the only one who has any value and funnily enough, he wasn't asked to take a wage cut.

---

Would be useful to see a list of what they paid for various players they're now trying to dump.

I think they might regret letting some of them leave for nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser1962

I think what they seemed to be doing was not to change the prize money per place, then it would require a 9-3 majority in favour. In order to get that place 13 and 14 would recieve the same as the current 1 + 2 in the Championship recieves currently and so on down the places. I would highlight the "I think" part....

---

So, they are asking two teams to play in the premier league, pay premier league wages, appear on t v in premier league live matches, and then accept championship money. ? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

Is that not what they want anyway? To get rid of as many as possible as soon as possible. Hickey is the only one who has any value and funnily enough, he wasn't asked to take a wage cut.

---

I was wondering if that probably wasn't what every club would want to have happen with their players at the moment? Is the transfer value of any squad of players at the moment higher than their wage liability?

What's the point of having a squad of players if you're not going to play any football any time soon?

Looking at the number of players still in contract at their clubs beyond this season, is it not the case that the clubs with the least players probably stand the best chance of being able to survive a sustained period without income?

I mean - Berra, Damour, Naismith, Boyce - they're on big bucks for what they realistically contribute (especially towards a football club who cannot play football games). If they came to you and threatened to walk away, would you not hold the door open and usher them out with a huge smile?

(Without wishing to condone the treatment of the players, which I think is disgraceful from Hearts. I just question, from the players' point of view, the wisdom of threatening Hearts with the very thing they probably want to happen?)

Fancy abit of a laugh on a Monday. Was looking to see if anyone could source me the thread on jamboskickback that would have covered our Scottish cup final win. Would love to read the replies to moment David Gray scores, anyone got that thread to hand😂

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index...-final-thread/

Never mind found it😂

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That might be the case if you're assuming that all of the Deferred Income is ST sales. But I thought you were saying that it isn't.

---

I suspect the VAT is included in the Deferred Income figure of £5m, which per a note in their accounts is mostly season tickets. The net figure would therefore be about £4.2m. That explains the disparity between the deferred figure & the final gates receipt total of £6m but the actual # still seems high. In 2018 they sold 10k by 3 May & 13k by 3 August. In 2019 they had sold 10.5k by 3 June. If we're extremely generous let's say they sold 13k by end June, that works out at £385 per ticket which seems high. Anyway, given they have no idea what division they'll be in next season I don't see them hitting those numbers in next 2 months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoboHarry

Reasons I want Hearts to stay up:

1. Nope, there are no reasons.

---

😁

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RossScott1991

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index...-final-thread/

Never mind found it😂

---

Brilliant!! I was looking for this as well. Why is it not in The Vault?

Does the Kaunas Cowboy still own a percentage of the Jumbos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RossScott1991

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index...-final-thread/

Never mind found it😂

---

If anyone wants to jump to the good bit, our equaliser is on page 16.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nonshinyfinish

If anyone wants to jump to the good bit, our equaliser is on page 16.

---

Thoroughly entertaining read this, have never seen it before. Complete meltdown about Robbie Neilson. The reaction to when rangers go 2.1 compared to next couple pages at 2.2 is brillaint hahaha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Every premiership club losing money is universally popular? Must be some good drugs floating about Gorgie these days.[emoji106][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

There’s something floating about Gorgie!

“Atleast with them being in the lower league we won’t have to put up with them gloating at a game”

my favourite comment on that cup final thread. Now I really need to try find the thread when we knocked them out the next again season as a lower league team!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RossScott1991

“Atleast with them being in the lower league we won’t have to put up with them gloating at a game”

my favourite comment on that cup final thread. Now I really need to try find the thread when we knocked them out the next again season as a lower league team!

---

Brilliant.

My favourite is this guys prediction.

"Hibs' cup win will paper over the cracks but they'll be back to playing to 8,000 or less next year and losing money hand over fist"

So 5pm is deadline to accept Budges offer or its nae wages time!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

Brilliant!! I was looking for this as well. Why is it not in The Vault?

---

The equivalent thread on follow follow is also a must-read!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gloucester Hibs

The equivalent thread on follow follow is also a must-read!

---

can someone post this please

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aldo

So 5pm is deadline to accept Budges offer or its nae wages time!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Will be interesting to see what happens if some players call her bluff. They've been quick to go public a few times on this situation so I wonder if she'll continue to do so and let us know what all the players have done. Or maybe that doesn't suit the agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Grants towards the new stand?

See Note 1.14

---

Older accounts show a grant of £1.8m being written off over 50 years. It would mean that there was still £1.08m left at 30/6/19 but for reasons I don't understand the grant disappears from the accounts after 2015. Presumably it's related to the administration, but that was accounted for in 2014. I can't see what happened to it from a quick scan of the accounts and life's too short to look any deeper.

I notice in one set of accounts reference is made to sponsorships received in advance so that might be inflating the deferred income as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

Will be interesting to see what happens if some players call her bluff. They've been quick to go public a few times on this situation so I wonder if she'll continue to do so and let us know what all the players have done. Or maybe that doesn't suit the agenda.

---

Will indeed. I hope they do. I cannot wait to see what positive spin she puts on it!

We have to remember though it’s what big teams do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Older accounts show a grant of £1.8m being written off over 50 years. It would mean that there was still £1.08m left at 30/6/19 but for reasons I don't understand the grant disappears from the accounts after 2015. Presumably it's related to the administration, but that was accounted for in 2014. I can't see what happened to it from a quick scan of the accounts and life's too short to look any deeper.

I notice in one set of accounts reference is made to sponsorships received in advance so that might be inflating the deferred income as well.

---

Maybe they got an Arts Council Grant for the provocative Stairs to Nowhere creation. Paid in advance, on the condition that it would be repayable if they ever went anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Maybe they got an Arts Council Grant for the provocative Stairs to Nowhere creation. Paid in advance, on the condition that it would be repayable if they ever went anywhere.

---

Is there a door tax I haven’t heard about? Like the old window tax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Maybe they got an Arts Council Grant for the provocative Stairs to Nowhere creation. Paid in advance, on the condition that it would be repayable if they ever went anywhere.

---

They're hoping to make a profit when it wins the Turner Prize!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

I suspect the VAT is included in the Deferred Income figure of £5m, which per a note in their accounts is mostly season tickets. The net figure would therefore be about £4.2m. That explains the disparity between the deferred figure & the final gates receipt total of £6m but the actual # still seems high. In 2018 they sold 10k by 3 May & 13k by 3 August. In 2019 they had sold 10.5k by 3 June. If we're extremely generous let's say they sold 13k by end June, that works out at £385 per ticket which seems high. Anyway, given they have no idea what division they'll be in next season I don't see them hitting those numbers in next 2 months.

---

Yes, that’s seems like the most logical explanation to me, shown gross within deferred income. The tax liability at year end is too low to include the VAT on advance season ticket money.

Without wanting to delve deeper in to football club VAT accounting it doesn’t seem unreasonable to account for the output VAT at some tax point in the future when the games are played.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gmack7

can someone post this please

---

Found the Rangers Media one which might have been the one I was remembering anyway - page 55 for Stokes' equaliser! Enjoy...

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/topi...e/55/#comments

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gloucester Hibs

Found the Rangers Media one which might have been the one I was remembering anyway - page 55 for Stokes' equaliser! Enjoy...

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/topi...e/55/#comments

---

How about the kickback thread for the 2-2? Anyone save that?


Anyway - I thought the clause 12 was to protect clubs from being in a position (as they do now) where the date of the season ending passes without the season being completed.

That would naturally cause clubs an issue with players being out of contract, so a clause that says their contact would continue for the suspended period means that the club can complete the season with the required number of players.

I don't think some of the folk inside football have got their heads around that yet, and I would say that it almost certainly wasn't intended as a means to avoid paying players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

How about the kickback thread for the 2-2? Anyone save that?


Anyway - I thought the clause 12 was to protect clubs from being in a position (as they do now) where the date of the season ending passes without the season being completed.

That would naturally cause clubs an issue with players being out of contract, so a clause that says their contact would continue for the suspended period means that the club can complete the season with the required number of players.

I don't think some of the folk inside football have got their heads around that yet, and I would say that it almost certainly wasn't intended as a means to avoid paying players.

---

That's one thread I've not seen but I'd love to. Was my birthday that day!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

How about the kickback thread for the 2-2? Anyone save that?


Anyway - I thought the clause 12 was to protect clubs from being in a position (as they do now) where the date of the season ending passes without the season being completed.

That would naturally cause clubs an issue with players being out of contract, so a clause that says their contact would continue for the suspended period means that the club can complete the season with the required number of players.

I don't think some of the folk inside football have got their heads around that yet, and I would say that it almost certainly wasn't intended as a means to avoid paying players.

---

I hope posters who claimed the opposite, that contracts couldn't be suspended, will acknowledge their mistake.

This is what I suggested way back, without knowing the clause, but some posters kept saying that the clubs couldn't just extend contracts, even though I was saying suspend the contract, and were claiming Kilmarnock would only have 4 players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

I hope posters who claimed the opposite, that contracts couldn't be suspended, will acknowledge their mistake.

This is what I suggested way back, without knowing the clause, but some posters kept saying that the clubs couldn't just extend contracts, even though I was saying suspend the contract, and were claiming Kilmarnock would only have 4 players.

---

Clubs can’t just extend contracts. They can suspend pay, they can’t say - we’re paying you later so you have to stay with us and play til we decide to pay you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

I hope posters who claimed the opposite, that contracts couldn't be suspended, will acknowledge their mistake.

This is what I suggested way back, without knowing the clause, but some posters kept saying that the clubs couldn't just extend contracts, even though I was saying suspend the contract, and were claiming Kilmarnock would only have 4 players.

---

Without the knowledge of the clause to suspend contracts, they were right.
I'm not even sure if that clause exists in all contracts.

If a player does have that clause then the contract permits the club to extend without further consultation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

I hope posters who claimed the opposite, that contracts couldn't be suspended, will acknowledge their mistake.

This is what I suggested way back, without knowing the clause, but some posters kept saying that the clubs couldn't just extend contracts, even though I was saying suspend the contract, and were claiming Kilmarnock would only have 4 players.

---

Kilmarnock haven’t used clause 12 as far as I’m aware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

I was wondering if that probably wasn't what every club would want to have happen with their players at the moment? Is the transfer value of any squad of players at the moment higher than their wage liability?

What's the point of having a squad of players if you're not going to play any football any time soon?

Looking at the number of players still in contract at their clubs beyond this season, is it not the case that the clubs with the least players probably stand the best chance of being able to survive a sustained period without income?

I mean - Berra, Damour, Naismith, Boyce - they're on big bucks for what they realistically contribute (especially towards a football club who cannot play football games). If they came to you and threatened to walk away, would you not hold the door open and usher them out with a huge smile?

(Without wishing to condone the treatment of the players, which I think is disgraceful from Hearts. I just question, from the players' point of view, the wisdom of threatening Hearts with the very thing they probably want to happen?)

---

I previously posted on a thread that Hearts have 26 players contracted for next season. This is a massive squad.

They definitely will be happy to see many of these guys walk away but they will also lose a number of players that they want to keep.

Also, when football does return then they will have to rebuild their squad. Their recent attempts at this have been piss poor and Our Daniel hasn't looked likely to improve that record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tug Wilson

I previously posted on a thread that Hearts have 26 players contracted for next season. This is a massive squad.

They definitely will be happy to see many of these guys walk away but they will also lose a number of players that they want to keep.

Also, when football does return then they will have to rebuild their squad. Their recent attempts at this have been piss poor and Our Daniel hasn't looked likely to improve that record.

---

Think 8 out of contract players have been told they can leave, presume inc Loan players

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Since452

That's one thread I've not seen but I'd love to. Was my birthday that day!

---

Snap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

Oh dear

https://t.co/ZPwvYgIp7w?amp=1

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

Is that not what they want anyway? To get rid of as many as possible as soon as possible. Hickey is the only one who has any value and funnily enough, he wasn't asked to take a wage cut.

---

Pretty much playing into their hands. Gives them the opportunity to clear the decks. Some (most) of these players will get nowhere near their current deals elsewhere. And where do they move to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aldo

So 5pm is deadline to accept Budges offer or its nae wages time!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Looking forward to a new STATEMENT at 5:01pm bragging about their success, with a coded dig at Hibs for good measure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

How about the kickback thread for the 2-2? Anyone save that?


Anyway - I thought the clause 12 was to protect clubs from being in a position (as they do now) where the date of the season ending passes without the season being completed.

That would naturally cause clubs an issue with players being out of contract, so a clause that says their contact would continue for the suspended period means that the club can complete the season with the required number of players.

I don't think some of the folk inside football have got their heads around that yet, and I would say that it almost certainly wasn't intended as a means to avoid paying players.

---

Could it be argued that the date for the season ending has not yet passed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacomo

Looking forward to a new STATEMENT at 5:01pm bragging about their success, with a coded dig at Hibs for good measure.

---

Without a doubt. Leading the way blah blah blah


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacomo

Looking forward to a new STATEMENT at 5:01pm bragging about their success, with a coded dig at Hibs for good measure.

---

Following the departure of all players except for Aaron Hickey, Hearts propose the league season is played to a finish by way of a game of Cuppy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser1962

Could it be argued that the date for the season ending has not yet passed?

---

Yeah but that is pretty much irrelevant as far as the suspension goes, in fact all clubs who have that clause in the contracts should be looking to exercise it in the unlikely event that the season gets finished at some point.

That's not to say they should stop paying players, that's not really in the spirit of the contract, but they should be taking steps to ensure they have a squad if the season gets finished in July, for example.

[QUOTE=Aldo;6155299]Without a doubt. Leading the way blah blah blah

Suspect there's some TV gold being recorded over the next hour or so!

[QUOTE=mjh;6155313]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aldo

Without a doubt. Leading the way blah blah blah

Suspect there's some TV gold being recorded over the next hour or so!

---

Nah she’s just full of threats and hot air. Guaranteed nothing gets done in the next few days or all the players have miraculously agreed a wage cut.

[QUOTE=90+2;6155321]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjh

Nah she’s just full of threats and hot air. Guaranteed nothing gets done in the next few days or all the players have miraculously agreed a wage cut.

---

Maybe but let’s wait and see!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=Aldo;6155322]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 90+2

Maybe but let’s wait and see!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Yep.

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index...saving-hearts/

The comment by Gin Rummy is a pearler

GinRummy GinRummy
Posted 1 hour ago
All these wee diddy clubs having a pop at us, acting as if they actually matter. Some of them with such small supports it would be an absolute irrelevance if they went under. I hope they all end up ******.

I'll leave it up to the "wee diddy clubs" to take great pleasure in sending you down mate! xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoYO!

GinRummy GinRummy
Posted 1 hour ago
All these wee diddy clubs having a pop at us, acting as if they actually matter. Some of them with such small supports it would be an absolute irrelevance if they went under. I hope they all end up ******.

I'll leave it up to the "wee diddy clubs" to take great pleasure in sending you down mate! xD

---

Should print that off and stick it to all their directors’ office walls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoYO!

GinRummy GinRummy
Posted 1 hour ago
All these wee diddy clubs having a pop at us, acting as if they actually matter. Some of them with such small supports it would be an absolute irrelevance if they went under. I hope they all end up ******.

I'll leave it up to the "wee diddy clubs" to take great pleasure in sending you down mate! xD

---

Thing is, in the minds of the deluded ****wits like this every club in Scotland is a diddy club to the famous! They are the bigliest team in the land don't you know?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoYO!

GinRummy GinRummy
Posted 1 hour ago
All these wee diddy clubs having a pop at us, acting as if they actually matter. Some of them with such small supports it would be an absolute irrelevance if they went under. I hope they all end up ******.

I'll leave it up to the "wee diddy clubs" to take great pleasure in sending you down mate! xD

---

I meant this one

All he’s interested in is his own self interest and he doesn’t speak for the other clubs so isn’t in a position to say it only suits Hearts. I’d imagine it’d suit Inverness as well so why not mention them.


There’s a few clubs out there trying to make out it’s all about Hearts and conveniently forgetting their own self interest is the only thing driving them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuzzywuzzy

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index...saving-hearts/

The comment by Gin Rummy is a pearler

---

I see some of them are still describing relegation as being ‘expelled’. Dear oh dear.

Did they get the players areement or not 5pm has come and gone ?

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenworld

Did they get the players areement or not 5pm has come and gone ?

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

---

Just waiting on Queen Ann’s statement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenworld

Did they get the players areement or not 5pm has come and gone ?

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

---

Apparently Michael Smith agreed to the pay cut, but his agent's email stating this has been withdrawn/gone missing.