Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

**Gus Fring** · 19-06-2013 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Treadstone

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

What are you thinking here Bajillions ? UKIO and 'the consortium' calling each others bluff.

UKIO : "Make a bid or its admin"

'the consortium' : "Gaun then"

UKIO : "How do you like them apples?"

'the consortium' : "Delay it and we will show you our bid"

UKIO : "You have until Wednesday"

Feel free to shoot it down.

I won't cause that's pretty much what I figured.

An alternative is that the consortium has shown UKIO their hand. UKIO now know that offers for the club will be poor. They've moved to appoint their own administrator.

I have corrected the Evening News' back page for them regardless.

**Tollhouse Hibee** · 19-06-2013 11:50 AM

It is gonna be so funny when the Jambos realise Charles Green is involved in the new consortium.

Out of the frying pan into the fire

**~~Peevemor~~** · 19-06-2013 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by StevieC

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

This just sounds like the Scandanavian lot. The ones that FoH said were nothing but wind and pish.

The Lithuanian administrator has indicated he will vote for our CVA, albeit with a 15-point penalty for Hearts for entering administration. It is up to the administrator at Hearts to go through that process. Our bid is predicated on a CVA

That's the interesting bit.

**PapillonVert** · 19-06-2013 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

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

This is a strange one. If true I'm guessing it's Massone, but the fact remains that UBIG own 79.9% of HoMFC's share capital, notwithstanding that some of that has been pledged to Ukio. UBIG's assets remain frozen so UBIG simply can't sell. Ukio are a secured creditor and may also have an unsecured balance, but a CVA has to be offered to all unsecured creditors (and approved by 75% in value of them) - that can't possibly have happened. Finally due diligence is highly unlikely to have been carried out.

I think this is nothing more than a testing of the water.

Any bid will most likely have conditions attached.

And due diligence, if properly carried out, could reveal a vipers' nest of issues for a new proprietor.

The Directors have not been exactly keen on daylight being thrown on the books for some time. God knows what horrors might creep out either through due diligence or administrator/liquidator moving in and getting their hands on the books (always assuming the relevant documentation has not been "accidentally" destroyed or gone missing somewhere - rather like the putative owner).

**greengnome** · 19-06-2013 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Peevemor

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

That's the interesting bit.

Clarify please..... For us less well read Hibby's..(Me)

**Treadstone** · 19-06-2013 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Bajillions

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

I have corrected the Evening News' back page for them regardless.

Can you correct the one at the top 'First capital derby on second day of season' we play Motherwell that day could be stretching the squad a bit or we could play the Yams on the second weekend of the season.

**SurferRosa** · 19-06-2013 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Peevemor

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

That's the interesting bit.

I dont understand this at all. How can UKIOs administrator accept a CVA? My understanding is that UBIG hold the majority of unsecured debt so it`s their decision that would count in a CVA vote surely? And, as far as we know, there is nobody at UBIG who is authorised to do this.....until they have their own administrator appointed.

**Gus Fring** · 19-06-2013 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by RossHibs

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

I dont understand this at all. How can UKIOs administrator accept a CVA? My understanding is that UBIG hold the majority of unsecured debt so it`s their decision that would count in a CVA vote surely? And, as far as we know, there is nobody at UBIG who is authorised to do this.....until they have their own administrator appointed.

They can't. Barry Anderson wrote the Article. That should explain everything

**~~nribs~~** · 19-06-2013 12:01 PM

Can one of the financial savy guys tell me does it look like these ****s sre really going to get away with all the cheating over the years!! It's affecting my work now.

**ScottB** · 19-06-2013 12:06 PM

Why on Earth would the Lithuanians vote for a £500k CVA? Something doesn't add up...

**~~LeighLoyal~~** · 19-06-2013 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by ScottB

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

Why on Earth would the Lithuanians vote for a £500k CVA? Something doesn't add up...

I don't get that either.

**~~Peevemor~~** · 19-06-2013 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by greengnome

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

Clarify please..... For us less well read Hibby's..(Me)

One of the major problems for anyone looking to take over Hearts is their debts to both UBIG and UKIO which include a security of the PBS. A CVA defines how much of these debts will be paid, eg. 10p in the £ or whatever. If a Lithuanian administrator has indicated that they are willing to accept the CVA proposed, then assuming a purchase price can also be agreed, this new consortium could take control of Hearts, including Tynecastle, debt free.

**Andy74** · 19-06-2013 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by ScottB

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

Why on Earth would the Lithuanians vote for a £500k CVA? Something doesn't add up...

Where did the 500k come into it?

**~~Peevemor~~** · 19-06-2013 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by RossHibs

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

I dont understand this at all. How can UKIOs administrator accept a CVA? My understanding is that UBIG hold the majority of unsecured debt so it`s their decision that would count in a CVA vote surely? And, as far as we know, there is nobody at UBIG who is authorised to do this.....until they have their own administrator appointed.

Good point, but I'd imagine a CVA proposal which is acceptible to UKIO's administrator would also work for whoever's put in charge of UBIG.

***Leithenhibby*** · 19-06-2013 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by RossHibs

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

I dont understand this at all. How can UKIOs administrator accept a CVA? My understanding is that UBIG hold the majority of unsecured debt so it`s their decision that would count in a CVA vote surely? And, as far as we know, there is nobody at UBIG who is authorised to do this.....until they have their own administrator appointed.

Originally Posted by Bajillions

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

They can't. Barry Anderson wrote the Article. That should explain everything

It should, but how can UBIG make these decisions without Directors?

**JeMeSouviens** · 19-06-2013 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by nribs

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

Can one of the financial savy guys tell me does it look like these ****s sre really going to get away with all the cheating over the years!! It's affecting my work now.

1. The cheating over the years.

I think we should be careful about what we call cheating. They have overspent and racked up debt since Mercer days. Was that cheating? No, plenty of clubs have done it and if you can service the debt then there's nothing against it in the rules, however morally dubious it might be. On the other hand, when they started failing to pay their players on time but kept signing new ones, that absolutely is cheating and that's what the 15 pt admin penalty and last season's transfer embargo was for.

2. Are they going to get away with it?

The absolute best case scenario for Hearts is that they find new owners who can satisfy the security over Tiny and agree a CVA with the other creditors. Even if that best case scenario happens (and there are all sorts of things that can go wrong, not least finding someone who actually has the money when push comes to shove) they will start next season on -15 with a ***** squad that makes relegation all but certain. If that qualifies as getting away with it then, yes, they might.

***Ozyhibby*** · 19-06-2013 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Peevemor

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

Good point, but I'd imagine a CVA proposal which is acceptible to UKIO's administrator would also work for whoever's put in charge of UBIG.

Ukio's admin won't get a vote on a CVA. They are a secured creditor.

**greengnome** · 19-06-2013 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Peevemor

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

One of the major problems for anyone looking to take over Hearts is their debts to both UBIG and UKIO which include a security of the PBS. A CVA defines how much of these debts will be paid, eg. 10p in the £ or whatever. If a Lithuanian administrator has indicated that they are willing to accept the CVA proposed, then assuming a purchase price can also be agreed, this new consortium could take control of Hearts, including Tynecastle, debt free.

Thanks for this info'.... Appreciated!.... My gut feeling is that the Yams are gonna get off very lightly... It seems that cheating does pay? Or maybe that is me being anti jambo?...
Again, thanks.

**~~Peevemor~~** · 19-06-2013 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by nribs

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

Can one of the financial savy guys tell me does it look like these ****s sre really going to get away with all the cheating over the years!! It's affecting my work now.

It shouldn't be that straightforward given the messy relationship between UBIG/UKIO/Hearts/whatever other holding companies are involved as well as any alleged illegal/money laundering/fraud stuff, but in Luthuania they may well take the global view that a bid of say £5-10m is better than nowt.

**~~clerriehibs~~** · 19-06-2013 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

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

1. The cheating over the years.

I think we should be careful about what we call cheating. They have overspent and racked up debt since Mercer days. Was that cheating? No, plenty of clubs have done it and if you can service the debt then there's nothing against it in the rules, however morally dubious it might be. On the other hand, when they started failing to pay their players on time but kept signing new ones, that absolutely is cheating and that's what the 15 pt admin penalty and last season's transfer embargo was for.

2. Are they going to get away with it?

The absolute best case scenario for Hearts is that they find new owners who can satisfy the security over Tiny and agree a CVA with the other creditors. Even if that best case scenario happens (and there are all sorts of things that can go wrong, not least finding someone who actually has the money when push comes to shove) they will start next season on -15 with a ***** squad that makes relegation all but certain. If that qualifies as getting away with it then, yes, they might.

Might not be a ***** squad. Dependent on who comes in (if and when) there may be no embargo and there may be money to burn on signings. Someone else's money, but par for the course.

**~~Peevemor~~** · 19-06-2013 12:21 PM

What's the betting on Leslie Deans being involved with this new lot? He's been very quiet of late.

**jgl07** · 19-06-2013 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by ScottB

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

Why on Earth would the Lithuanians vote for a £500k CVA? Something doesn't add up...

Was it a CVA. I interpreted the £500,000 as a investment secured against the transfer values of players to avoid administration. Some sort of third party ownership of player contracts. This would not be allowed in England (see the West Ham Carlos Tevez case) although I am not sure about Scotland. It seems rather implausible either way.

**Andy74** · 19-06-2013 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by clerriehibs

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

Might not be a ***** squad. Dependent on who comes in (if and when) there may be no embargo and there may be money to burn on signings. Someone else's money, but par for the course.

There is a hearing due on not paying last wage.

The last time it happened the total ban was lifted when up to date but they got a restricted registration arrangement for the rest of the season.

I can't see how they could get any less this time so they shouldn't get any new players next year over 21.

**~~clerriehibs~~** · 19-06-2013 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by clerriehibs

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

Might not be a ***** squad. Dependent on who comes in (if and when) there may be no embargo and there may be money to burn on signings. Someone else's money, but par for the course.

And ... no admin yet, so that scenario might not happen either.

**SurferRosa** · 19-06-2013 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

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

It should, but how can UBIG make these decisions without Directors?

They cant. An appointed administrator could though, which they haven`t got yet.

***Ozyhibby*** · 19-06-2013 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

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

1. The cheating over the years.

I think we should be careful about what we call cheating. They have overspent and racked up debt since Mercer days. Was that cheating? No, plenty of clubs have done it and if you can service the debt then there's nothing against it in the rules, however morally dubious it might be. On the other hand, when they started failing to pay their players on time but kept signing new ones, that absolutely is cheating and that's what the 15 pt admin penalty and last season's transfer embargo was for.

2. Are they going to get away with it?

The absolute best case scenario for Hearts is that they find new owners who can satisfy the security over Tiny and agree a CVA with the other creditors. Even if that best case scenario happens (and there are all sorts of things that can go wrong, not least finding someone who actually has the money when push comes to shove) they will start next season on -15 with a ***** squad that makes relegation all but certain. If that qualifies as getting away with it then, yes, they might.

I imagine cheating is only declared when you fail to pay back the money you borrowed.

**HFC 0-7** · 19-06-2013 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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

Ukio's admin won't get a vote on a CVA. They are a secured creditor.

They will get a vote. Their security is only for 6.8million. They are owed £15 million so they will have an input on the cva for what the security doesn't cover.

worth noting that the longer they take to go into admin the more debt they will be racking up, vat or PAYE will be due again soon.

the articles about them being bought and the people buying having a draft cva sounds strange as they would need them in admin to apply a cva?

**--------** · 19-06-2013 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by clerriehibs

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

Might not be a ***** squad. Dependent on who comes in (if and when) there may be no embargo and there may be money to burn on signings. Someone else's money, but par for the course.

That thought's occurred to me too.

It all depends on who takes over and how quickly they can sort things out. Happy as I am that they're suffering right now, I hope we don't all end up with egg on our faces in the long run.

**Treadstone** · 19-06-2013 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Peevemor

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

What's the betting on Leslie Deans being involved with this new lot? He's been very quiet of late.

Aye no heard of him since he wanted to bury deid Yams in exchange for their money.

***Leithenhibby*** · 19-06-2013 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by RossHibs

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

I dont understand this at all. How can UKIOs administrator accept a CVA? My understanding is that UBIG hold the majority of unsecured debt so it`s their decision that would count in a CVA vote surely? And, as far as we know, there is nobody at UBIG who is authorised to do this.....until they have their own administrator appointed.

Originally Posted by RossHibs

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

They cant. An appointed administrator could though, which they haven`t got yet.

Thanks for that!

Still way too many avenues that this could go! Not sure how much I can take.

What I would say though, I'm just glad that www, fb and twitter were nowhere to be seen when WM tried his sneaky move on us!