Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

[Seveno]

The signing restrictions are to last until the end of the season.

[cabbageandribs1875]

you have to feel for them















NOT

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Interesting!

I think it's good for them. Financial restrictions that they should have been operating themselves, being imposed from above. It won't affect the big picture, of course, but it might help give them some breathing space.

[Hibbyradge]

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

The signing restrictions are to last until the end of the season.

That assumes that the "SPL Board is satisfied that the Remuneration Default is no longer ongoing."

A big assumption.

[Mikey]

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

I think it's good for them. Financial restrictions that they should have been operating themselves, being imposed from above. It won't affect the big picture, of course, but it might help give them some breathing space.

And they get to blame the SPL for imposing it on them, rather than doing it themselves.

Not that they were doing it themselves anyway!!

[danhibees1875]

So even if they do get their emargo lifted they can only bring in under 21s and at a lower wage (which to be fair won't be hard I imagine)...

[Mikey]

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

So even if they do get their emargo lifted they can only bring in under 21s and at a lower wage (which to be fair won't be hard I imagine)...

As CWG says, they're effectively being forced to do what they should have done years ago.

[Pedantic_Hibee]

Absolute lollathon!

'SHALL WE SIGN A PLAYER FOR YOU'

[Hibbyradge]

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

As CWG says, they're effectively being forced to do what they should have done years ago.

Except they're not.

Read the ruling again.

Unless they want to sign under 21 players who are free agents after the window closes, the embargo only affects January because the one in one out rule stops at the end of the season.

It could be business as usual from May.

The SPL have hardly punished them.

[Corstorphine Hibby]

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

So even if they do get their emargo lifted they can only bring in under 21s and at a lower wage (which to be fair won't be hard I imagine)...

What I can't understand is why they don't just pay the outstanding bonuses rather than speaking to their lawyers and saying they will challenge the embargo ( although we are still waiting ). They allegedly raised 1.1 mil from the bake sale, 350k for Templeton from the new Huns and the dough from the Hibs game. Or am I being naive and that money has all been trousered ?

[CropleyWasGod]

Retweeted via Irvine Welsh:-

When the signing ban is lifted, Hearts can only sign players whose surnames have a Scrabble value of 6 points and above.

[brog]

I'm still unsure what has compelled the various football authorities to grow a new one with regard to their dealings with Yams. I can guess that perhaps they finally realised they were being taken for a ride, that supposed contract amendments were not worth the paper they weren't written on etc, but I believe there must have been some event which precipitated the current actions. My best guess would be that someone on staff at PBS finally recognised the ba's burst & has provided information re lack of payments. Any other thoughts?
interesting also that Yams supposed legal challenge to the embargo does not appear to have happened. Makes you wonder just how many other malpractices are present in the house of Vlad & Fester!

[Saorsa]

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

I'm still unsure what has compelled the various football authorities to grow a new one with regard to their dealings with Yams. I can guess that perhaps they finally realised they were being taken for a ride, that supposed contract amendments were not worth the paper they weren't written on etc, but I believe there must have been some event which precipitated the current actions. My best guess would be that someone on staff at PBS finally recognised the ba's burst & has provided information re lack of payments. Any other thoughts?
interesting also that Yams supposed legal challenge to the embargo does not appear to have happened. Makes you wonder just how many other malpractices are present in the house of Vlad & Fester!

I'll be convinced when they start docking them points at the next non payment.

[greenginger]

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

I'm still unsure what has compelled the various football authorities to grow a new one with regard to their dealings with Yams. I can guess that perhaps they finally realised they were being taken for a ride, that supposed contract amendments were not worth the paper they weren't written on etc, but I believe there must have been some event which precipitated the current actions. My best guess would be that someone on staff at PBS finally recognised the ba's burst & has provided information re lack of payments. Any other thoughts?
interesting also that Yams supposed legal challenge to the embargo does not appear to have happened. Makes you wonder just how many other malpractices are present in the house of Vlad & Fester!

Not really, I've yet to hear of any action on Vlad's " Referee Bribes " rant from a couple of months back.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...pool-1-2610869

[justlikebrazil]

You think after all the embargoes the Hearts fans will now realise that they are cheating barstewards!!!!

[Hibbyradge]

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

I'm still unsure what has compelled the various football authorities to grow a new one with regard to their dealings with Yams. I can guess that perhaps they finally realised they were being taken for a ride, that supposed contract amendments were not worth the paper they weren't written on etc, but I believe there must have been some event which precipitated the current actions. My best guess would be that someone on staff at PBS finally recognised the ba's burst & has provided information re lack of payments. Any other thoughts?
interesting also that Yams supposed legal challenge to the embargo does not appear to have happened. Makes you wonder just how many other malpractices are present in the house of Vlad & Fester!

The SPL could have banned them from signing anyone.

Instead, once they settle the bonus issue, they can sign under 21 players and come the summer, they can sign Rimmy and Skacel if they still want them.

[ano hibby]

Don't see how this is a further ban it seems like a watered down version of current indefinite ban..?
Previously, zero in one out.
Now, one in one out. Albeit with the age & wage restrictions.
This seems to give them more room to breathe than before..?

Am I missing something?

[hibs0666]

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

Not really, I've yet to hear of any action on Vlad's " Referee Bribes " rant from a couple of months back.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...pool-1-2610869

Vlad's not a club official so he can say whatever he likes and will get away with it.

[EskbankHibby]

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

The SPL could have banned them from signing anyone.

Instead, once they settle the bonus issue, they can sign under 21 players and come the summer, they can sign Rimmy and Skacel if they still want them.

Despite the factually correct information in your post the two jambos i have just spoke to think the SPL are making rules up to penalise them and they are being incredibly hard done by. The architect of all this? Our own Mr Petrie.

Could. Not. Make. It. Up.

[Ozyhibby]

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

The SPL could have banned them from signing anyone.

Instead, once they settle the bonus issue, they can sign under 21 players and come the summer, they can sign Rimmy and Skacel if they still want them.

They are banned from signing anyone untill they are all up to date with wages. They are already behind on last months and they need to shell out another £350k in 16 days time. The only home game before then is the Derby which was sold out weeks ago so no new income their then.
None of this really matters to them at all compared with their biggest problem which is that they are fast running out of cash. If they can make it to the end of January they are doing well.

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

Don't see how this is a further ban it seems like a watered down version of current indefinite ban..?
Previously, zero in one out.
Now, one in one out. Albeit with the age & wage restrictions.
This seems to give them more room to breathe than before..?

Am I missing something?

Yes. They can't bring anyone in until they are up to date with all salaries and they are only 16 days away from another pay day.

[Jack Hackett]

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

Despite the factually correct information in your post the two jambos i have just spoke to think the SPL are making rules up to penalise them and they are being incredibly hard done by. The architect of all this? Our own Mr Petrie.

Could. Not. Make. It. Up.

You can if you're a yam...it's the only straw they have left

[greenginger]

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

Vlad's not a club official so he can say whatever he likes and will get away with it.

I'm sure they changed the rules after Vlad's first rant when they could'nt act, and the Yams have been warned and fined previously for Vlad statements.

[Famous5forever]

well i have just surfaced after our glorious victory over Celtic to this news it does no get any better.

[Springbank]

I urge anyone going to the derby to take your own crisps and mars bars. Don't give them your money at the kiosk

[greenginger]

SRM HEARTS Ltd

ftp://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ima...1-08303440.pdf

I thought I would have a look at the company that runs the Hearts Shop.

Directors Mr & Mrs Henderson and Mr Alexander. Who are they ?

Turnover just over £ 1 million, with creditors of £160 k at the end of the year of accounts. Corporation Tax of £ 15,759 to pay cos it is a separate company from the Club with its Zillions of losses.

Can't see the point in setting something up just to pay extra Tax ? but its down amongst the creditors so may'be it does not count.

Cav / CWG any logic in this set-up ?

[robinp]

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

Don't see how this is a further ban it seems like a watered down version of current indefinite ban..?
Previously, zero in one out.
Now, one in one out. Albeit with the age & wage restrictions.
This seems to give them more room to breathe than before..?

Am I missing something?

The current ban is in place because they are not paying their players. Once they have got their finances sorted they will be permitted to sign players; fair enough in my opinion. Keep in mind that this new restriction will only come into place when they pay up and the SPL are satisfied they are paying regularly, but it also means that they can't just go out and get Satchel or Rim-me. They will be forced to down size or reduce wages to sign players, again I think this is a good punishment from the SPL.

As funny as it would be, the SPL cannot indefinitely ban them from signing players if the pay up, even we are not stupid enough to expect that?

[greenlex]

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

Despite the factually correct information in your post the two jambos i have just spoke to think the SPL are making rules up to penalise them and they are being incredibly hard done by. The architect of all this? Our own Mr Petrie.

Could. Not. Make. It. Up.

Is Petrie even anything special in SPL terms? I thought he was an SFA man?

EDIT - The current SPL Board is made up of Ralph Topping (SPL Chairman), Neil Doncaster (SPL Chief Executive), Eric Riley (Celtic FC), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United FC), Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen FC) and Michael Johnston (Kilmarnock FC).

From the SPL Website.

[--------]

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

I urge anyone going to the derby to take your own crisps and mars bars. Don't give them your money at the kiosk

You wouldn't even think of eating or drinking anything that came out of Tynecastle, would you?

A sure source of galloping dysentry, if you ask me. How do you think the shirts get to be that colour?

[RyeSloan]

So to be clear.

There is a total transfer ban on Hearts until they can provide assurance to the SPL that they are no longer in any deficit in terms of wages, bonuses and any other player remuneration.

Then once (IF!) the SPL have satisfaction that Hearts have paid their outstanding dues there will be an easing of the transfer embargo to allow limited player movement (one in, one out, under 21 etc). This is to remain in place until the end of the Season.

Therefore Hearts are now effectively under a limited transfer embargo (at best) until the end of the season with the specific proviso that they cannot increase their wage bill by £1 even if they can evidence that they are up to date with all remuneration.

Is that correct?

[Ozyhibby]

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

So to be clear.

There is a total transfer ban on Hearts until they can provide assurance to the SPL that they are no longer in any deficit in terms of wages, bonuses and any other player remuneration.

Then once (IF!) the SPL have satisfaction that Hearts have paid their outstanding dues there will be an easing of the transfer embargo to allow limited player movement (one in, one out, under 21 etc). This is to remain in place until the end of the Season.

Therefore Hearts are now effectively under a limited transfer embargo (at best) until the end of the season with the specific proviso that they cannot increase their wage bill by £1 even if they can evidence that they are up to date with all remuneration.

Is that correct?

That's how I read it.