Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

[Phil MaGlass]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thank you, pretty much what I thought and I really don't understand why they are not seeing that themselves unless it is blind emotion/optimism.

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20115241

"The cost of the squad that won silverware [the Scottish Cup] last season is £8m and our income is just short of £7m. Also, we need to speak about the cost of running the business, running Tynecastle - that adds to the gap and there are no realistic chances of covering this gap by normal income. We've exhausted pretty much all possibilities."

As Cav has already pointed out they do not seem to be able to produce up to date figures. He is saying, in one breath, that they have made a profit last season without the requirement of debt forgiveness and in another he is spouting figures which make no sense. If he is telling us that last season they spent £8m on wages that would be an increase from 2011 (£7.121m) despite their cost cutting. Income "just short of £7m" sounds suspiciously like the £6.915m they managed in 2010-2011.

I would expect that by now he would have accurate figures to hand and, if the figures provided by Fedovatas are remotely accurate then there is not a hope in hell they made a profit in 2011-2012 without considerable outside assistance.

[Twa Cairpets]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As Cav has already pointed out they do not seem to be able to produce up to date figures. He is saying, in one breath, that they have made a profit last season without the requirement of debt forgiveness and in another he is spouting figures which make no sense. If he is telling us that last season they spent £8m on wages that would be an increase from 2011 (£7.121m) despite their cost cutting. Income "just short of £7m" sounds suspiciously like the £6.915m they managed in 2010-2011.

I would expect that by now he would have accurate figures to hand and, if the figures provided by Fedovatas are remotely accurate then there is not a hope in hell they made a profit in 2011-2012 without considerable outside assistance.

The brochure also lists operating costs of just over £3million.
So:
Turnover: £7M
Squad Costs: £8M
Operating costs: £3M
Possible back tax bill: £1 3/4M
Bank Says "No more"

Now, I'm no financial genius, but I think this means they're royally, truly, hilariously rodgered to the hilt. Death approaches. I'm looking forward to some of the Vlad outbursts, and also to seeing just how long the Vlad loyalists over on ostrichback still worship at the alter of Mr Romanov.
Popcorn oot.

[Jim44]

If it came to a CVA, I wonder if they would be asked to pay 51p in the pound. :-)

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Maybe one of the financial whizzes will be able to answer this.
Just had a wee look at the brochure out of interest and I noticed that they're offering incentives to buy shares, like free tickets to matches, hospitality, signed shirts and free season tickets. Are they allowed to do this?
In financial services there's rules about gifts in return for business, could this be viewed in the same way?

I think this is slightly different. Buying the shares makes them part-owners of the club so the incentives are just giving the owners preferential treatment - the existing small shareholders might have grounds for complaint if they don't get the same perks but I don't think there are any significant legal implications. If the shareholders were also directors or employees there may be some tax implications, but they aren't so there's not.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

IMO, administration is very unlikely. If there is one, the administrators will come to a very quick decision that there is no alternative to liquidation.

I think that's the killing argument, but one thing that crossed my mind regarding the tax liability.

Tynie is covered by a fixed charge so couldn't be sold without the consent of UBIG and that part of UBIG's debt wouldn't fall into the CVA vote. If the balance of UBIG's debt did stand as an ordinary creditor they might have enough to vote through a CVA thereby reducing the tax liability to pennies in the pound. It would reduce UBIG's debt as well but that is irrecoverable in any case. It probably wouldn't work as things are currently arranged, but....

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

IMO, administration is very unlikely. If there is one, the administrators will come to a very quick decision that there is no alternative to liquidation.

Are you sure?
The biggest issue in the Rangers situation was that HMRC were owed the majority of the debt, and as such their rejection of the CVA was what resulted in liquidation.
In this case UKIO are owed the majority of the debt (probably close to £40m by now) so if they accepted a CVA would HMRC have to abide by it?
The CVA could include a bid of £15m for the assets from a little known (Lituanian) businessman.
After the CVA goes through you suddenly find Hearts receiving a £15m loan from UKIO (with Tynecastle as security) and the merry-go-round begins again.

Obviously UKIO would have to write-off at least half of their debt, but there's usually a "debt forgiveness" write off each season anyway.

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The brochure also lists operating costs of just over £3million.
So:
Turnover: £7M
Squad Costs: £8M
Operating costs: £3M
Possible back tax bill: £1 3/4M
Bank Says "No more"

Now, I'm no financial genius, but I think this means they're royally, truly, hilariously rodgered to the hilt. Death approaches. I'm looking forward to some of the Vlad outbursts, and also to seeing just how long the Vlad loyalists over on ostrichback still worship at the alter of Mr Romanov.
Popcorn oot.

Over the last three years published accounts, even if they had paid £0 wages, they would still have lost £100k. Their running costs, not including wages, are almost £8m per season.

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Are you sure?
The biggest issue in the Rangers situation was that HMRC were owed the majority of the debt, and as such their rejection of the CVA was what resulted in liquidation.
In this case UKIO are owed the majority of the debt (probably close to £40m by now) so if they accepted a CVA would HMRC have to abide by it?
The CVA could include a bid of £15m for the assets from a little known (Lituanian) businessman.
After the CVA goes through you suddenly find Hearts receiving a £15m loan from UKIO (with Tynecastle as security) and the merry-go-round begins again.

Obviously UKIO would have to write-off at least half of their debt, but there's usually a "debt forgiveness" write off each season anyway.

The drawback is that UBIG's debt is secured by a fixed charge. That makes them a preferred creditor and takes them out of a CVA vote. If they have been planning for an administration any debt incurred since 30 June 2011 might be due to another company and be unsecured, giving them a vote. The real problem though, is that HoMFC are not a going concern without UBIG's support so an exit from administration would prove difficult.

[Hermit Crab]

I think we should carry a coffin to tynie before the next derby just like what the Celtic fans did when they went to ibrox. That would be hilarious. There is a YouTube video of it 👍 http://youtu.be/NtDVTBTKvuk

[bingo70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Over the last three years published accounts, even if they had paid £0 wages, they would still have lost £100k. Their running costs, not including wages, is over amost £8m per season.

That's absolutely bonkers considering they still need to build a new stand and don't own there own training ground.

[fatbloke]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If it came to a CVA, I wonder if they would be asked to pay 51p in the pound. :-)

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The drawback is that UBIG's debt is secured by a fixed charge. That makes them a preferred creditor and takes them out of a CVA vote.

If they are due £30m+ but only £18m is secured (and even that is hopeful for Tynecastle and land) would the outstanding £12m+ not put them as a creditor in a CVA attempt?

Not questioning your knowledge, just curious as to how a company due £30m+ would be ignored in a CVA attempt.

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If they are due £30m+ but only £18m is secured (and even that is hopeful for Tynecastle and land) would the outstanding £12m+ not put them as a creditor in a CVA attempt?

Not questioning your knowledge, just curious as to how a company due £30m+ would be ignored in a CVA attempt.

Question away, because I don't know this one for sure. The way I see it though, is that the asset doesn't have a set value until it's sold and the debt keeps moving so the arrangement is that the whole of the debt is secured on the whole of the asset and if the creditor is daft enough to let the debt exceed the value of the asset then that excess is at risk. In administration, if HoMFC were keeping Tynie both the asset and the debt would be kept out of the picture completely. If they were to sell Tynie then the unpaid balance of the debt would fall into the unsecured creditors pot, but at that stage continuation would seem unlikely since their main asset was gone so a CVA wouldn't apply.

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If they were to sell Tynie then the unpaid balance of the debt would fall into the unsecured creditors pot, but at that stage continuation would seem unlikely since their main asset was gone so a CVA wouldn't apply.

Could they sell Tynie as a "going concern" with guaranteed rental income though, in the way you might sell any other rented property? The sale of Tynie would be deducted from UBIG debt (lets say £30m-£15m sale) and they would then become an unsecured creditor in a CVA attempt. The CVA would be £15m-£1.75m in UBIG favour on the remaining assets (players etc.).

[greenginger]

The Ukio Bankas (as opposed to UBIG ) have just announced losses of 44 million Litas about £11 million for the first 9 months of 2012.

Don't look like the Bank is going to bail the Yams out.

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Question away, because I don't know this one for sure. The way I see it though, is that the asset doesn't have a set value until it's sold and the debt keeps moving so the arrangement is that the whole of the debt is secured on the whole of the asset and if the creditor is daft enough to let the debt exceed the value of the asset then that excess is at risk. In administration, if HoMFC were keeping Tynie both the asset and the debt would be kept out of the picture completely. If they were to sell Tynie then the unpaid balance of the debt would fall into the unsecured creditors pot, but at that stage continuation would seem unlikely since their main asset was gone so a CVA wouldn't apply.

But if UBIG has a standard security over the stadium and a floating charge over all the Company assets would'nt UBIG be the first to get their debts settled leaving nothing for HMRC or any other mugs , sorry, creditors.

[HoboHarry]

Hats off to you lot that understand all this stuff. I would rather set myself on fire than take the time to learn it.....

[Glory Lurker]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But if UBIG has a standard security over the stadium and a floating charge over all the Company assets would'nt UBIG be the first to get their debts settled leaving nothing for HMRC or any other mugs , sorry, creditors.

They'd theoretically be able to sell all the company's assets (assuming buyers could be found for the whole lot), but that would only recoup part of their exposure. That's as far as their priority goes - they would have to claim for the balance as unsecured creditors, just like all the others, so I suppose it depends how ready a market there is for the assets as to whether they will simply go down this "closing the door" route.

[#FromTheCapital]

This whole share issue is just wrong imo. Vladimir Romanov - a millionaire is asking a bunch of peasants from gorgie to give him money and has basically admitted that anyone who invests will not get a penny back. Surely if people have any disposable income they should be giving it to a charity, not some bent crook from Easter Europe who already has millions. There's more important things in life.

Had a look over on broke back and they've started a thread for people who have bought shares already. Congratulating each other on being belters. One guy says that he's already bought some and will be buying more for his family as Christmas presents. I seriously don't know whether to laugh or cry. "Here kids look what I got you for Christmas! **** all and it cost me hundreds!!" Fudd

[Moulin Yarns]

Shoot me down if this rubbish, but are shareholders not liable financially for any debts incurred by a plc?

Could that mean the 400,000 shareholders will be asked to stump up in the future?

[Part/Time Supporter]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Shoot me down if this rubbish, but are shareholders not liable financially for any debts incurred by a plc?

Could that mean the 400,000 shareholders will be asked to stump up in the future?

No, unless they've provided some sort of guarantee for the debts.

[itchy07]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Shoot me down if this rubbish, but are shareholders not liable financially for any debts incurred by a plc?

Could that mean the 400,000 shareholders will be asked to stump up in the future?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No, unless they've provided some sort of guarantee for the debts.

E

Hope the investing yams have read the small print

[greenginger]

One things for sure these share offer brochures were not cheap. I wonder if the printer got cash up front.

Also, they would have taken some time to put together so its been some months in the planning. The late wages was a ploy to concentrate Yam minds.

[greenginger]

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ab...48/compdetails

Just noticed the Company that is looking for supporters cash can't even keep up to date with their annual returns.Should have been lodged at companies house by 19th September.

Its a 2 minute job with a £ 13 lodging fee,that is if you know who is willing to be listed as a company director of that lot.

Can you make a share offer if your statutory returns are out of date ?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ab...48/compdetails

Just noticed the Company that is looking for supporters cash can't even keep up to date with their annual returns.Should have been lodged at companies house by 19th September.

Its a 2 minute job with a £ 13 lodging fee,that is if you know who is willing to be listed as a company director of that lot.

Can you make a share offer if your statutory returns are out of date ?

Yes, you can. However, were you a potential investor, would you invest in a company that couldn't keep its statutory duties?

[jgl07]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Shoot me down if this rubbish, but are shareholders not liable financially for any debts incurred by a plc?

No. They key is PLC (Public Limited Liability Company). Shareholders are only liable to the value of their shares.

In any event Hearts are no longer a PLC since Vlad took them off the London Stock Exchange if I recall correctly. The same provision applies to an Ltd (Limited Liability Company).

Since according to the Accounts, UBIG are financially backing Hearts so they could have some liability in the vent of a liquidation. I would not fancy the chances of any cereditor getting any cash.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No. They key is PLC (Public Limited Liability Company). Shareholders are only liable to the value of their shares.

In any event Hearts are no longer a PLC since Vlad took them off the London Stock Exchange if I recall correctly. The same provision applies to an Ltd (Limited Liability Company).

Since according to the Accounts, UBIG are financially backing Hearts so they could have some liability in the vent of a liquidation. I would not fancy the chances of any cereditor getting any cash.

Yes they are.....http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ab...48/compdetails

I can't see that UBIG would have any liability. They will make a loss on their investment, though.

[JoeTortolanoFanClub]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The brochure also lists operating costs of just over £3million.
So:
Turnover: £7M
Squad Costs: £8M
Operating costs: £3M
Possible back tax bill: £1 3/4M
Bank Says "No more"

As Dickens' Micawber said: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen shillings and sixpence, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery."

[green glory]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ab...48/compdetails

Just noticed the Company that is looking for supporters cash can't even keep up to date with their annual returns.Should have been lodged at companies house by 19th September.

Its a 2 minute job with a £ 13 lodging fee,that is if you know who is willing to be listed as a company director of that lot.

Can you make a share offer if your statutory returns are out of date ?

I think you're all missing the important factor here. Maroonsevco don't have the 13 big ones.

[Jack Hackett]

Anyone know if Vlad actually took delivery of the £17m jet he was reported to have bought last year. Did he turn up in it for his trip here last weekend?

Would be a right slap in the face for the jumbos if he did