Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

[gogse]

So...
St Mirren (as far as we know) have played within the financial rules and tomorrow will be fielding players they could/can only afford because they have some integrity and have abided with those rules.

Hearts on the other hand will be fielding players that have been bought and paid for with borrowed / unpaid tax money.

If you take the assumption that players are worth / paid in accordance to skill level, Then Hearts will field a more skilful team than St Mirren.
This in turn, means (in theory) Hearts have an unfair advantage (in terms of keeping / not keeping within the financial rules).

Should they have this advantage with the endorsement of the tax man?

Or am I being closed minded to the fact that it doesn’t matter how you conduct your accounts, as long as you win?

[The Green Goblin]

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

So...
St Mirren (as far as we know) have played within the financial rules and tomorrow will be fielding players they could/can only afford because they have some integrity and have abided with those rules.

Hearts on the other hand will be fielding players that have been bought and paid for with borrowed / unpaid tax money.

If you take the assumption that players are worth / paid in accordance to skill level, Then Hearts will field a more skilful team than St Mirren.
This in turn, means (in theory) Hearts have an unfair advantage (in terms of keeping / not keeping within the financial rules).

Should they have this advantage with the endorsement of the tax man?

Or am I being closed minded to the fact that it doesn’t matter how you conduct your accounts, as long as you win?

You are spot on. It seems that despite all the talk of revolution and change, little has changed following the old Rangers crimes of a similar nature.

And we could also apply your idea to every game Hearts have played since they didn't pay the tax that was owed....and that includes both their cup wins.

[EskbankHibby]

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

I know it's laughable, but it's also possible.

At a time when UBIG need cash, if that's the only offer on the table, that is what they will have to accept. I have been saying for years (to the boredom of my friends and family) that someone will pick up the club for sweeties, either in an insolvency or otherwise.

Calderwood?

I would love it if this happens.

[BarneyK]

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

So...
St Mirren (as far as we know) have played within the financial rules and tomorrow will be fielding players they could/can only afford because they have some integrity and have abided with those rules.

Hearts on the other hand will be fielding players that have been bought and paid for with borrowed / unpaid tax money.

If you take the assumption that players are worth / paid in accordance to skill level, Then Hearts will field a more skilful team than St Mirren.
This in turn, means (in theory) Hearts have an unfair advantage (in terms of keeping / not keeping within the financial rules).

Should they have this advantage with the endorsement of the tax man?

Or am I being closed minded to the fact that it doesn’t matter how you conduct your accounts, as long as you win?

Yip. Scottish Football's governing bodies covering themselves in glory once more. The game needs to change. There needs to be a strong singular body who will basically tell clubs how much they are allowed to spend on their playing budget, as certain clubs clearly can't be trusted to run themselves efficiently (and legally). The wages/turnover ratio should never be allowed to be exceeded. It puts all of Scottish Football in jeopardy.

[PapillonVert]

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

Omnishambles.

Omniyambles??

Maybe should go in the Yamasaurus?

[#FromTheCapital]

They've just put another statement on their website titled 'changes explained' http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/2...241384_2982106

Doesn't explain much though!

[The Green Goblin]

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

Omniyambles??

Maybe should go in the Yamasaurus?

Romaniyambles?

[Mikey]

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

They've just put another statement on their website titled 'changes explained' http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/2...241384_2982106

Doesn't explain much though!

Yesterday's explanation didn't point the finger at anyone, but obviously it's not their own fault.............

"However, it is disappointing that a key partner such as our merchant service provider did not share the same viewpoint and as such they have instructed us that supporters will no longer be able to purchase shares by credit or debit card from 5pm tonight.

[Sergey]

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

Yesterday's explanation didn't point the finger at anyone, but obviously it's not their own fault.............

I find it rather ironic that a club, who's owners ultimately own the majority of a bank, can't even negotiate a contract with a payment service provider.

That truly beggars belief.

[jacomo]

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

Omniyambles??

Maybe should go in the Yamasaurus?

Tis done.

[duffers]

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

They've just put another statement on their website titled 'changes explained' http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/2...241384_2982106

Doesn't explain much though!

"The club was obviously pleased that the tax authorities recognised our endeavours to stabalise our financial position and is looking forward to working togetherto ensure all agreed payments are made on schedule"

Im sure HMRC can't wait.....

[Spike Mandela]

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

I know it's laughable, but it's also possible.

At a time when UBIG need cash, if that's the only offer on the table, that is what they will have to accept. I have been saying for years (to the boredom of my friends and family) that someone will pick up the club for sweeties, either in an insolvency or otherwise.

I think Vlad would take his chances in an insolvency event before losing face and selling off everything on the cheap to some oppurtunistic widos. It's an ego thing imo.

[Emerald]

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

I think Vlad would take his chances in an insolvency event before losing face and selling off everything on the cheap to some oppurtunistic widos. It's an ego thing imo.

You can't really do a share issue for £1.8m representing 10% of the club and then sell 100% of it for £4.5m. On these calculations excluding debts tax cases etc, that would amount to only 25% of his valuation. I think he's gonna blow the conning tower of the sub shortly if any more of these offers come in.

[Onion]

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

So...
St Mirren (as far as we know) have played within the financial rules and tomorrow will be fielding players they could/can only afford because they have some integrity and have abided with those rules.

Hearts on the other hand will be fielding players that have been bought and paid for with borrowed / unpaid tax money.

If you take the assumption that players are worth / paid in accordance to skill level, Then Hearts will field a more skilful team than St Mirren.
This in turn, means (in theory) Hearts have an unfair advantage (in terms of keeping / not keeping within the financial rules).

Should they have this advantage with the endorsement of the tax man?

Or am I being closed minded to the fact that it doesn’t matter how you conduct your accounts, as long as you win?

The simple answer is, yes. Now that they have (allegedly) agreed a payback deal with HMRC, the tax man is just like any other lender. Terms have been agreed for the repayment of the "loan" with penalties if they don't - so no different to going to your local bank.

The situation changes if they default on that agreement and the club either goes into Admin or is liquidated. In that case, the SPL/SFA should assess, based on their financial record/position what unfair advantage they had up to the point where they went bust and then:

1. hammer the owners, the club, and the company.
2. indemnify any club that was seriously impacted by the Yams unfair advantage eg relegated.
3. strip the club of any trophies/titles they achieved through the unfair advantage eg in the Yams case, this is likely to incl the SC.

[The_Sauz]

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

Money for Nothing as Mark Knopfler sang

[Onion]

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

You can't really do a share issue for £1.8m representing 10% of the club and then sell 100% of it for £4.5m. On these calculations excluding debts tax cases etc, that would amount to only 25% of his valuation. I think he's gonna blow the conning tower of the sub shortly if any more of these offers come in.

Frankly, £1.8m for a (minority) 10% share of the company is ludicrous - Only fools would pay that kind of money for HMFC in its current position. And Vlad knows it. Haven't the Yams read about the Emperor's new clothes

So, Vlad must value the club at more than £18 million

[The_Sauz]

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

Understanding is Vlad never owned Minsk - he just sponsored the club.

In early 2012 the club was abandoned by their main sponsor Vladimir Romanov and consequently wasn't able to keep any of the first team players or obtain the Premier League license.^[2] Partizan withdrew from the Premier League, leaving it with only 11 teams.^[3] As of March 2012 the club is struggling to join Second League for the upcoming season. Due to problems with license Partizan Minsk was not able to take part in Second League. Currently the team is playing in Third League which is known as Championship of Minsk city

So he done a dirty on them as well

[Onion]

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

Yesterday's explanation didn't point the finger at anyone, but obviously it's not their own fault.............

What a bunch of amateurs. IMHO their "partner" has woken up to the fact that what the Yams are doing is immoral at best but more likely illegal. They are fleecing the public of money under the guise of a share issue based on a fictitious valuation that bears no resemblance to the actual financial position of the company, while deliberately withholding material information- such as their outstanding tax bills and other debts.

Obvious question: where is the Financial Services Authority and other regulators, and why are they not all over this "scam" like a rash ? When the **** hits the fan(s) and this all unravels, serious questions will be asked about consumer protection.

[KeithTheHibby]

Another thing worth mentioning; given the yams league position most would have expected McGlynn to have been emptied now.
The mad one has sacked managers for less. They clearly have no cash and sacking this clown must be so far down the agenda that it's not worth mentioning or considering.

[The_Sauz]

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

This is the bit I dont really get. Do the Yams really think that Vlad gives a ***** what happems to them? Seriously? The man has previous and if he does it in/to Kaunas, where he made his name and his companies are based, then he is not going to give a second thought to putting a cap in their ass.

If someone wants Hearts any bid to Vlad is going to have to be in the region of £8m -£10m (and thats with the debt, and a debt free club is going to take a bid of around £17m to even get Vlad's attention.

While its all very well to say it's only worth what someone is prepared to pay, and technically it's worth hee haw, it's equally true to say that its worth whatever Vlad wants it to be worth. Its his to do with whatever he wants and always was from the day Foulkes and Deans and Robinson welcomed the man as their saviour.

Vlad is selling and if they want to buy they will have to meet his valuation, if they dont he has shown elsewhere what he will do.

Try £30m (at least) for the assets & a debt free club.....remember it's Vlad we are talking about

[jacomo]

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

What a bunch of amateurs. IMHO their "partner" has woken up to the fact that what the Yams are doing is immoral at best but more likely illegal. They are fleecing the public of money under the guise of a share issue based on a fictitious valuation that bears no resemblance to the actual financial position of the company, while deliberately withholding material information- such as their outstanding tax bills and other debts.

Obvious question: where is the Financial Services Authority and other regulators, and why are they not all over this "scam" like a rash ? When the **** hits the fan(s) and this all unravels, serious questions will be asked about consumer protection.

I know... you would have thought that coercing money out of stupid people by claiming it's an "investment" and that their club is at risk if they don't stump up.

But what do I know?

[gogse]

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

The simple answer is, yes. Now that they have (allegedly) agreed a payback deal with HMRC, the tax man is just like any other lender. Terms have been agreed for the repayment of the "loan" with penalties if they don't - so no different to going to your local bank.

The situation changes if they default on that agreement and the club either goes into Admin or is liquidated. In that case, the SPL/SFA should assess, based on their financial record/position what unfair advantage they had up to the point where they went bust and then:

1. hammer the owners, the club, and the company.
2. indemnify any club that was seriously impacted by the Yams unfair advantage eg relegated.
3. strip the club of any trophies/titles they achieved through the unfair advantage eg in the Yams case, this is likely to incl the SC.

Agree, But how many loans should they get from the taxman?
Look at this article from February this year (10 months ago)...

http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/new...ion-unpaid-tax

How other clubs work (and correctly so), is they don’t take “loans” from the taxman and pay their tax on time (hindering their cash flow in comparison to Hearts).

If all the other clubs worked in the same way as Hearts then there would be a level playing field.

But the fact that Hearts have used tax money to pay for better players, to gain league position/European games in the hope of a higher financial return (so they can pay back the tax at a later date) .

All at the expense of teams paying their tax on time.

I know they shall reap what they sow, but the tax man letting them off for a few weeks gives (in my opinion) an unfair advantage over St Mirren.

If Hearts survive, it will just compound the issue of unfairness to all the teams they have beaten as a result of late payment of tax.

Rant over.

[7062]

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

Agree, But how many loans should they get from the taxman?
Look at this article from February this year (10 months ago)...

http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/new...ion-unpaid-tax

How other clubs work (and correctly so), is they don’t take “loans” from the taxman and pay their tax on time (hindering their cash flow in comparison to Hearts).

If all the other clubs worked in the same way as Hearts then there would be a level playing field.

But the fact that Hearts have used tax money to pay for better players, to gain league position/European games in the hope of a higher financial return (so they can pay back the tax at a later date) .

All at the expense of teams paying their tax on time.

I know they shall reap what they sow, but the tax man letting them off for a few weeks gives (in my opinion) an unfair advantage over St Mirren.

If Hearts survive, it will just compound the issue of unfairness to all the teams they have beaten as a result of late payment of tax.

Rant over.

A very good rant though.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Agree, But how many loans should they get from the taxman?
Look at this article from February this year (10 months ago)...

http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/new...ion-unpaid-tax

How other clubs work (and correctly so), is they don’t take “loans” from the taxman and pay their tax on time (hindering their cash flow in comparison to Hearts).

If all the other clubs worked in the same way as Hearts then there would be a level playing field.

But the fact that Hearts have used tax money to pay for better players, to gain league position/European games in the hope of a higher financial return (so they can pay back the tax at a later date) .

All at the expense of teams paying their tax on time.

I know they shall reap what they sow, but the tax man letting them off for a few weeks gives (in my opinion) an unfair advantage over St Mirren.

If Hearts survive, it will just compound the issue of unfairness to all the teams they have beaten as a result of late payment of tax.

Rant over.

There has been a change in HMRC's attitude in recent years in relation to unpaid and late paid tax.

Before this most recent recession, they would "sue and be damned", which often led to insolvency, people being made redundant, the loss of the tax on their wages, and the State having to stump up in benefits. It cost you and I money, but the Revenue's point was made.

In recent years, however, they have had a more co-operative attitude. Partly, that recognises how difficult it is to run a business these days, but it also reflects a more commercial approach. By giving businesses a little more time, the flow of tax money keeps going. Using Hearts' example, if HMRC had played hard-ball the first or second time they were late with their PAYE, that would have been it.... no more money for UK plc. Thus far, however, Hearts have always paid eventually; HMRC's approach has been successful in that respect.

It is, of course, complicated by the fact that we are talking about an industry that is directly competitive and can result in unfairness as a result of not paying one's way.

One should also not lose sight of HMRC's role to apply the law, and to be seen to apply it, to discourage others. It is not an easy balance to strike for them.

[7062]

Although all it would be met with is probably another pointless player registration embargo, does anyone know if the players/staff that have not agreed to have their wages deferred have been paid today?

[Hibercelona]

Besides a short term transfer embargo. Have Hearts actually ever received any other punishments for their blatant years of cheating?

Why is it, that only at "Hearts" you can get away with doing whatever you like? While every other club that lives in the real world, has to abide by the rules?

They should have been dead and buried ages ago, but instead, the powers that be are too afraid to place any more sanctions on them, incase they go pop.

The games a joke! Die you ********!!

[green glory]

Is there any info on the court of session appearance today? And more importantly have they actually stumped up any cash for Hector yet?

[Golden Bear]

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

Besides a short term transfer embargo. Have Hearts actually ever received any other punishments for their blatant years of cheating?

Why is it, that only at "Hearts" you can get away with doing whatever you like? While every other club that lives in the real world, has to abide by the rules?

They should have been dead and buried ages ago, but instead, the powers that be are too afraid to place any more sanctions on them, incase they go pop.

The games a joke! Die you ********!!

Friends in high places is the answer. They are the Establishment team after all.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Is there any info on the court of session appearance today? And more importantly have they actually stumped up any cash for Hector yet?

No mention of their case on the C Of S website, for yesterday or today.

Are you sure it's the Court of Session, and not the Sheriff Court?

[hibs0666]

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

There has been a change in HMRC's attitude in recent years in relation to unpaid and late paid tax.

Before this most recent recession, they would "sue and be damned", which often led to insolvency, people being made redundant, the loss of the tax on their wages, and the State having to stump up in benefits. It cost you and I money, but the Revenue's point was made.

In recent years, however, they have had a more co-operative attitude. Partly, that recognises how difficult it is to run a business these days, but it also reflects a more commercial approach. By giving businesses a little more time, the flow of tax money keeps going. Using Hearts' example, if HMRC had played hard-ball the first or second time they were late with their PAYE, that would have been it.... no more money for UK plc. Thus far, however, Hearts have always paid eventually; HMRC's approach has been successful in that respect.

It is, of course, complicated by the fact that we are talking about an industry that is directly competitive and can result in unfairness as a result of not paying one's way.

One should also not lose sight of HMRC's role to apply the law, and to be seen to apply it, to discourage others. It is not an easy balance to strike for them.

There is no doubt though that more relaxed behaviours are distorting the market and (unfairly IMO) advantage ****** clubs (in maroon) over pristine clubs (in green).