The fact that the charges are in place means that RG can bale out the club with immediate effect if need be, knowing that the mechanism is in place to protect his money.
Printable View
The fact that the charges are in place means that RG can bale out the club with immediate effect if need be, knowing that the mechanism is in place to protect his money.
Just seen in the papers this morning, that there is a clause in the SPFL players contract, that if there is no games being played players wages can be withdrawn until games resume!!!
Also, Borrusia Dortmund and Hoffenhiem have also cut players salaries by 50%.
These times are really bad, and wait and see could cost more in the long run!!!
The accounts still aren't available at Companies House. I don't know the arrangement at Hibs but it's often the case in smaller companies that the auditor takes care of the Companies House filing so the delay may be down to them. Plenty of shareholders have seen the accounts and no real concerns have been raised to I wouldn't be concerned about anything being hidden in them (that's to cocteautwin). Unless RG is a Romanov type character I'm not greatly concerned about the charges either. They're common business practice and Ron doesn't seem to be the sort of person that would be lending us other people's money.
The potential problem isn’t the charge over HFC assets by Bydand it’s the unknown possible charge over Bydand’s assets by some party that we can’t see due to the secrecy rules of Delaware LLCs.
It’s the one black mark on HFC’s finances and in the current financial climate I think our supporters or HSL should be vocal about having the charges removed.
I disagree strongly about having the charges removed. They give scope for Ron to inject funds into the club if necessary and removing them would not remove the risk presented by charges further up the tree. If the unthinkable were to happen Ron's creditors would take control of his shares in the club anyway whether or not the charges in the club were in place.
It’s interesting to have this discussion. My own personal opinion is that as he is majority owner he should have the confidence in his own stewardship that Hibs should be a well run club and he therefore shouldn’t need to protect any investment by a charge over the assets. There’s no real NEED for the charges to exist.
My biggest concern about the charges, and I know this is controversial, is that removal of the charges would give the fans confidence that the purchase of the club wasn’t financed by a bank that has taken a charge over the asset further up the chain. With the charges sitting there it means there will always be a suspicion over the financing of the transaction.
I hope Ron took
The opportunity to inject more cash when the pound was showing at 1.15 dollars earlier this week🤗
My point is that removing the charges in HFC would not reduce the risk further up the chain. Ron does not own the stadium, he owns shares in the club and those shares are the assets that would be carrying any charge on Ron. If another entity held charges on ER it would be reported in the accounts - like you I haven't seen the accounts but no one who has has suggested that that's the case. They would also be registered at Companies House.
The point about having a charge over the stadium etc is that if the club did have to go into administration they are preserved by the holding company and can be retained for when the club resumes solvent trading. If the holding company is insolvent we're f****d whether or not the charges exist. In other words, there's more reasons to have them than not to have them.
I'm confident in our finances and the financial decision makers in our club
Now is probably the time to offer a disgracefully low amount of money to Dunfermline for Nisbet if we still want him.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We should put a low bid in for Morelos as well.
Then we can play him up front with Kamberi next season.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51988937
A view from LD
Heard Fraser Wishart on Sportsound today. He’s hoping the government 80% contribution applies to footballers
One of the panel suggested, with part time players, can the day employer and the club both claim for the same person? Presume they are on PAYE at both employers
I'm sure I heard the 80% thing is being done though PAYE. If someone has 2 sources of income on which they pay tax then I'm sure the Inland Revenue will make sure the £2,500pm isn't breached.
I see Aberdeen are next to report proposed losses with no games being played, £5 million!!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52006599