Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

[Geo_1875]

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

UBIG's biggest creditor is UKiO who poured loans to Romanov through them. UKIO's biggest creditor is the Lithuanian State so UBIG will vote in-line with UKIO and indications are they will accept CVA given their pursuit of Romanov and co for the £300 million the government pumped into to save the depositors. They see Hearts as innocent victims of the Romanov scam. The game is over.

I doubt it matters whether they see HoMFC as innocent pawns in Romanovs nefarious dealings. If they are seriously interested in getting the best possible return from his evil empire they cannot possibly consider £2.5m for the ground and £1 for the club as good value. They would surely turn the screw a little bit more.

[Killiehibbie]

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

I doubt it matters whether they see HoMFC as innocent pawns in Romanovs nefarious dealings. If they are seriously interested in getting the best possible return from his evil empire they cannot possibly consider £2.5m for the ground and £1 for the club as good value. They would surely turn the screw a little bit more.

I would like to think they won't accept less than the value of the land the dump sits on.

[Weststandwanab]

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

I doubt it matters whether they see HoMFC as innocent pawns in Romanovs nefarious dealings. If they are seriously interested in getting the best possible return from his evil empire they cannot possibly consider £2.5m for the ground and £1 for the club as good value. They would surely turn the screw a little bit more.

Precisely and they will.

[Islington Hibs]

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

I doubt it matters whether they see HoMFC as innocent pawns in Romanovs nefarious dealings. If they are seriously interested in getting the best possible return from his evil empire they cannot possibly consider £2.5m for the ground and £1 for the club as good value. They would surely turn the screw a little bit more.

You would have thought so. I have no inside knowledge here but reading the tea leaves it looks like a done deal. Whether they get £2.5m or £4m frankly doesn't matter in the great scheme of things to the creditors and this is a political minefield so I guess they will take the cash and draw a line under it. Those cheats will almost certainly get away with it. (hope I am wrong).

However with luck and probability they will be relegated and given Servco are back they should be down for a couple of seasons. When they get back they will have to live within their means, with an asbestos filled ground that is falling to bits. If the Council bails them out to a plastic fantastic stadium on the outskirts of town as a tenant with Edinburgh Rugby, it will also be pretty soulless for them. Very unlikely the next 10 years will be anything like as good as the last 10 for them.

What really matters however is not them but us. It is high time we put them in their place.

[Deansy]

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

oh the poor wee lambs, victims? innocent victims, really?

2 cup wins, Champions league games and other Europa league games, all through spending money they didn't have. This is 2nd only to match fixing itself (direct quote from FIFA/UEFA).

They knew what they were doing and they lapped up every damn minute of it (but oh, we were in a mess going to lose Tynecastle anyway, so mad vlad the saviour, let's all get tatoo's of the man).

Stealing from every man and business out there, 'receiving' all the benefits of other peoples work and not paying for hardly anything. Stealing, cheating, shameless club that I can barely even bring myself to talk about anymore when Scottish Football is being discussed.

Hitting rock bottom of Scottish Football, should be the minimum consequence. They should be playing at grounds we've barely heard of, let alone been to. They should be borrowing maps of Scotland from their big cousins to get to games. We shouldn't need to see or hear from them for several years.

THE CLUB WITH NO SHAME!

Yet throughout that 'Money/trophy-Laden' spell, they regularly couldn't pay their players wages - but being 'innocent', not one of them (and remember, there's 400,000 of them PLUS accountants allegedly doing their audits every season !) wondered WHY those facts don't quite balance !!!!

[Geo_1875]

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

You would have thought so. I have no inside knowledge here but reading the tea leaves it looks like a done deal. Whether they get £2.5m or £4m frankly doesn't matter in the great scheme of things to the creditors and this is a political minefield so I guess they will take the cash and draw a line under it. Those cheats will almost certainly get away with it. (hope I am wrong).

However with luck and probability they will be relegated and given Servco are back they should be down for a couple of seasons. When they get back they will have to live within their means, with an asbestos filled ground that is falling to bits. If the Council bails them out to a plastic fantastic stadium on the outskirts of town as a tenant with Edinburgh Rugby, it will also be pretty soulless for them. Very unlikely the next 10 years will be anything like as good as the last 10 for them.

What really matters however is not them but us. It is high time we put them in their place.

I don't see the political implications. Other than a couple of local trough-swillers getting their pictures in the local rag and an un-minuted meeting between the First Minister and the Lithuanian "ambassador" there has not been any political intervention on either side. If anything it's more of a judicial minefield with the various countries involved in the search for Vlad's billions.

[clerriehibs]

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

Looks like the Hearts will survive and I for one am glad. It gives us the chance to exorcise the cup final demons over the next few years by regularly whacking them. Without Hearts life would be so dull!

Really? We can't even avoid losing to their boys.

[Pete]

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

Really? We can't even avoid losing to their boys.

This is a new start though.

If anyone inside the dressing room has an attitude like that, even subconsciously, they won't have for much longer.

[StevieC]

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

Desanto, I've enjoyed your posts in this thread but you're like someone who's just found God, or in this case the Devil with your sudden conversion to a CVA being a foregone conclusion. I can sum up your posts as Full Speed Ahead - Reverse!!!!

I was thinking the same.

I'm half expecting him to start arguing with himself "Gollum" style.

[Dashing Bob S]

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

I doubt it matters whether they see HoMFC as innocent pawns in Romanovs nefarious dealings. If they are seriously interested in getting the best possible return from his evil empire they cannot possibly consider £2.5m for the ground and £1 for the club as good value. They would surely turn the screw a little bit more.

The idea that Lithunanian authorities consider Hearts as 'innocent pawns' is a completely fanciful one with no basis in reality. As you've said, they'll simply look at the hard, cold numbers, and see what they can get back. Whether Hearts and their apologists like it or not, monies were flowing in and out of their accounts from Romanov's various dealings, and the club and its other officers, will be legally implicated in any fraudulent activities. Ignorance (as to where the money came from and went) is no excuse and Hearts trying to play 'the daft laddie' won't wash with the authorities. If there is to be co-operation with our own tax authorities, I would imagine that wouldn't be good for Hearts - the inland revenue must be sick of clubs using the admin route to bump them.

I think the worst is yet to come for Hearts - I'd be very surprised (but delighted, because I think the FOH plan is ludicrous and unworkable) to see a CVA before Christmas. I anticipate a long administration, followed by more twists in the investigation tale, then liquidation.

[Thecat23]

At first I wanted them dead. Not now, I want then to suffer with such a **** team they will wish they were dead. Hibs are now on the up. Proper management team all the foundations laid in place and Hearts have nothing! We WILL dish out a few good derby doings in the future mark my words. Hearts will never be the team they were!

So sit back enjoy it and let the good time roll :D

[clerriehibs]

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

At first I wanted them dead. Not now, I want then to suffer with such a **** team they will wish they were dead. Hibs are now on the up. Proper management team all the foundations laid in place and Hearts have nothing! We WILL dish out a few good derby doings in the future mark my words. Hearts will never be the team they were!

So sit back enjoy it and let the good time roll :D

A good few doings? So they're not getting relegated, or will be bouncing right back up, then?

That doesn't sound like as good as dead to me, unfortunately.

[Jim44]

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

A good few doings? So they're not getting relegated, or will be bouncing right back up, then?

That doesn't sound like as good as dead to me, unfortunately.

I think relegation will be a close run thing between them and Killie. Knowing their undisputed luck, I wouldn'tbe surprised in the slightest if they get there with games to spare. I really don't know any more than anyone elsewhere they are going in terms of administration, CVA or liquidation but I tend to think that they will come out of this, not smeling of roses but in not such a sorry state as an awful lot of people think they will.

[Hermit Crab]

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

At first I wanted them dead. Not now, I want then to suffer with such a **** team they will wish they were dead. Hibs are now on the up. Proper management team all the foundations laid in place and Hearts have nothing! We WILL dish out a few good derby doings in the future mark my words. Hearts will never be the team they were!

So sit back enjoy it and let the good time roll :D

I stuck my neck out when butcher was first touted for the job weeks ago and said to a few yam colleagues that if butcher got the job then we wouldn't lose to hearts again this season. I stand by that. Butcher won't accept anything less than 100% commitment on the 2nd of jan. This time it's our day. Happy new year yams.

Anyone else think it's going to work out that we get the chance to relegate in march at Tynecastle??

[PapillonVert]

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

UBIG's biggest creditor is UKiO who poured loans to Romanov through them. UKIO's biggest creditor is the Lithuanian State so UBIG will vote in-line with UKIO and indications are they will accept CVA given their pursuit of Romanov and co for the £300 million the government pumped into to save the depositors. They see Hearts as innocent victims of the Romanov scam. The game is over.

What about the Lithuanian small savers and businesses who have lost everything in the great Romanov fraud? I would imgaine the Lithuanian admins/liquidators might be tempted to put their interests before those of a football club in Scotland.

[greenginger]

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

What about the Lithuanian small savers and businesses who have lost everything in the great Romanov fraud? I would imgaine the Lithuanian admins/liquidators might be tempted to put their interests before those of a football club in Scotland.

The Ukio creditors have a committee and their admin. said a while back he was referring the FoH offer to them.

May'be they swallowed the victim crap.

I still think the Yams biggest hurdle will be to get HMRC to vote to accept zilch taking account of their past payments behavior and failure to comply with their last HMRC arrangement.

I still can't understand why no media genius has asked BDO if they think HMRC will support the CVA on the 22nd.

[Ozyhibby]

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

The Ukio creditors have a committee and their admin. said a while back he was referring the FoH offer to them.

May'be they swallowed the victim crap.

I still think the Yams biggest hurdle will be to get HMRC to vote to accept zilch taking account of their past payments behavior and failure to comply with their last HMRC arrangement.

I still can't understand why no media genius has asked BDO if they think HMRC will support the CVA on the 22nd.

They don't need HMRC. They only need Ubig and Ukio. That makes up 75% of the vote.

[southsider]

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

What about the Lithuanian small savers and businesses who have lost everything in the great Romanov fraud? I would imgaine the Lithuanian admins/liquidators might be tempted to put their interests before those of a football club in Scotland.

What about me, you and every other tax payer in the UK getting scammed again by a bunch of thieves, led by my (hope to be ex) MP Murray. He should be sacked for not putting the interests of UK taxpayers first. When he comes to me door at election time he will be told.

[Hermit Crab]

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

The Ukio creditors have a committee and their admin. said a while back he was referring the FoH offer to them.

May'be they swallowed the victim crap.

I still think the Yams biggest hurdle will be to get HMRC to vote to accept zilch taking account of their past payments behavior and failure to comply with their last HMRC arrangement.

I still can't understand why no media genius has asked BDO if they think HMRC will support the CVA on the 22nd.

They won't will they? Is it not hmrc policy to vote against cva things?

[Thecat23]

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

A good few doings? So they're not getting relegated, or will be bouncing right back up, then?

That doesn't sound like as good as dead to me, unfortunately.

We still have at least 2 more games against them. So could easily dish one out in those ones. Always cup comps if they drop. Just because they won't be in the league doesn't mean it's the last we play them.

[greenginger]

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

They don't need HMRC. They only need Ubig and Ukio. That makes up 75% of the vote.

They also need 50% of the vote of non-connected parties ( can Cav. Cwg, Pts, Robin.p please confirm I'm not mistaken )

Both Ukio and UBIG are connected . HMRC is more than 50% on its own in the non-connected category.

[robinp]

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

They also need 50% of the vote of non-connected parties ( can Cav. Cwg, Pts, Robin.p please confirm I'm not mistaken )

Both Ukio and UBIG are connected . HMRC is more than 50% on its own in the non-connected category.

I was going to PM this to you but i guess it's worthwhile posting here. This is the Rangers CVA proposal which ultimately failed. Check page 55 of the PDF regarding Requisite Majorities at Creditors’ Meetings which is included as an appendix for information purposes of the creditors for when they vote (so they know the rules and implications): http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpr...a-proposal.pdf


Paragraphs 2 and 4 state (as I have already posted):
(2) A resolution to approve the proposal or a modification is passed when a majority of
three quarters or more (in value) of those present and voting in person or by proxy
have voted in favour of it.

However Paragraph 4 caveats (as I have already posted):
(4) Any resolution is invalid if those voting against it include more than half in value of the
creditors—
(a) to whom notice of the meeting was sent;
(b) whose votes are not to be left out of account under paragraph (3); and
(c) who are not, to the best of the chairman‘s belief, persons connected with the
company.

I am going to run this by my IP boss on Friday when he is back in. To me the wording is pretty cut and dry. What this says, IMO, is that of the total creditors who are not connected to the club in some way (that definition is a few pages back), if 50% reject the CVA it fails. Green Ginger produced a list and he had worked out that of the 26 million creditors, HMRC represent over 50% of the non-connected creditors by value. i.e. if they reject, it fails (based on the rules I have posted and DP included in their CVA proposal for Rangers too).

[greenginger]

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

I was going to PM this to you but i guess it's worthwhile posting here. This is the Rangers CVA proposal which ultimately failed. Check page 55 of the PDF regarding Requisite Majorities at Creditors’ Meetings which is included as an appendix for information purposes of the creditors for when they vote (so they know the rules and implications): http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpr...a-proposal.pdf


Paragraphs 2 and 4 state (as I have already posted):
(2) A resolution to approve the proposal or a modification is passed when a majority of
three quarters or more (in value) of those present and voting in person or by proxy
have voted in favour of it.

However Paragraph 4 caveats (as I have already posted):
(4) Any resolution is invalid if those voting against it include more than half in value of the
creditors—
(a) to whom notice of the meeting was sent;
(b) whose votes are not to be left out of account under paragraph (3); and
(c) who are not, to the best of the chairman‘s belief, persons connected with the
company.

I am going to run this by my IP boss on Friday when he is back in. To me the wording is pretty cut and dry. What this says, IMO, is that of the total creditors who are not connected to the club in some way (that definition is a few pages back), if 50% reject the CVA it fails. Green Ginger produced a list and he had worked out that of the 26 million creditors, HMRC represent over 50% of the connected creditors by value. i.e. if they reject, it fails (based on the rules I have posted and DP included in their CVA proposal for Rangers too),

Thanks, I might call a sports jurno and ask why its being ignored.

[Glesgahibby]

Lots of ifs and buts regarding voting structures,
75 percent ? 1st vote and 50 percent ? Second vote.
lots of UBIG need to vote with UKIO ?
HMRC can scupper the second vote?
Is abstaining the same as a no vote ?
Do UKIO and UBIG creditors vote on how to vote ?
Will football creditors be allowed to vote as there debts,as per CVA(foh) will be paid ?
Will Vlads faraway nest egg company be allowed to vote ?
Will present employees of HMFC(wages) be allowed to vote ?
Will EDC vote and if so will we know how they voted ?
Will yams with no share certicates(in the post since March) be allowed to vote ?

[Hermit Crab]

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

I was going to PM this to you but i guess it's worthwhile posting here. This is the Rangers CVA proposal which ultimately failed. Check page 55 of the PDF regarding Requisite Majorities at Creditors’ Meetings which is included as an appendix for information purposes of the creditors for when they vote (so they know the rules and implications): http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpr...a-proposal.pdf


Paragraphs 2 and 4 state (as I have already posted):
(2) A resolution to approve the proposal or a modification is passed when a majority of
three quarters or more (in value) of those present and voting in person or by proxy
have voted in favour of it.

However Paragraph 4 caveats (as I have already posted):
(4) Any resolution is invalid if those voting against it include more than half in value of the
creditors—
(a) to whom notice of the meeting was sent;
(b) whose votes are not to be left out of account under paragraph (3); and
(c) who are not, to the best of the chairman‘s belief, persons connected with the
company.

I am going to run this by my IP boss on Friday when he is back in. To me the wording is pretty cut and dry. What this says, IMO, is that of the total creditors who are not connected to the club in some way (that definition is a few pages back), if 50% reject the CVA it fails. Green Ginger produced a list and he had worked out that of the 26 million creditors, HMRC represent over 50% of the non-connected creditors by value. i.e. if they reject, it fails (based on the rules I have posted and DP included in their CVA proposal for Rangers too).

Daffy time?

[Ozyhibby]

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

I was going to PM this to you but i guess it's worthwhile posting here. This is the Rangers CVA proposal which ultimately failed. Check page 55 of the PDF regarding Requisite Majorities at Creditors’ Meetings which is included as an appendix for information purposes of the creditors for when they vote (so they know the rules and implications): http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpr...a-proposal.pdf


Paragraphs 2 and 4 state (as I have already posted):
(2) A resolution to approve the proposal or a modification is passed when a majority of
three quarters or more (in value) of those present and voting in person or by proxy
have voted in favour of it.

However Paragraph 4 caveats (as I have already posted):
(4) Any resolution is invalid if those voting against it include more than half in value of the
creditors—
(a) to whom notice of the meeting was sent;
(b) whose votes are not to be left out of account under paragraph (3); and
(c) who are not, to the best of the chairman‘s belief, persons connected with the
company.

I am going to run this by my IP boss on Friday when he is back in. To me the wording is pretty cut and dry. What this says, IMO, is that of the total creditors who are not connected to the club in some way (that definition is a few pages back), if 50% reject the CVA it fails. Green Ginger produced a list and he had worked out that of the 26 million creditors, HMRC represent over 50% of the non-connected creditors by value. i.e. if they reject, it fails (based on the rules I have posted and DP included in their CVA proposal for Rangers too).

Just had a look on Kickback and they obviously have a positive spin on this. They are claiming that only individuals count in this rule and not companies. Is it possible they are right?

....

Potential hiccups to their CVA are

1. Ukio vote against. Unlikely it seems now.
2. Ubig vote against. Impossible to know yet. They appear to not benefit either way. As their admin still has to generate his own fees I'd be surprised if they were not looking for something from FoH.
3. The 50% of non connected rule. I've only just realised this could come into play. Hopefully it works as we think.
4. The Frozen shares and the legal process in Lithuania. Hopefully Sergey is on the money on this one as it's never been mentioned elsewhere.
Any others?
Is this all just wishful thinking?
Guess we'll find out in the next 9 days.

[Weststandwanab]

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

The Ukio creditors have a committee and their admin. said a while back he was referring the FoH offer to them.

May'be they swallowed the victim crap.

I still think the Yams biggest hurdle will be to get HMRC to vote to accept zilch taking account of their past payments behavior and failure to comply with their last HMRC arrangement.

I still can't understand why no media genius has asked BDO if they think HMRC will support the CVA on the 22nd.

Because they know the answer H.M.R.C. will not vote to accept.

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

They don't need HMRC. They only need Ubig and Ukio. That makes up 75% of the vote.

Correct.

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

What about me, you and every other tax payer in the UK getting scammed again by a bunch of thieves, led by my (hope to be ex) MP Murray. He should be sacked for not putting the interests of UK taxpayers first. When he comes to me door at election time he will be told.

Remember there is a General Election coming

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

I was going to PM this to you but i guess it's worthwhile posting here. This is the Rangers CVA proposal which ultimately failed. Check page 55 of the PDF regarding Requisite Majorities at Creditors’ Meetings which is included as an appendix for information purposes of the creditors for when they vote (so they know the rules and implications): http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpr...a-proposal.pdf


Paragraphs 2 and 4 state (as I have already posted):
(2) A resolution to approve the proposal or a modification is passed when a majority of
three quarters or more (in value) of those present and voting in person or by proxy
have voted in favour of it.

However Paragraph 4 caveats (as I have already posted):
(4) Any resolution is invalid if those voting against it include more than half in value of the
creditors—
(a) to whom notice of the meeting was sent;
(b) whose votes are not to be left out of account under paragraph (3); and
(c) who are not, to the best of the chairman‘s belief, persons connected with the
company.

I am going to run this by my IP boss on Friday when he is back in. To me the wording is pretty cut and dry. What this says, IMO, is that of the total creditors who are not connected to the club in some way (that definition is a few pages back), if 50% reject the CVA it fails. Green Ginger produced a list and he had worked out that of the 26 million creditors, HMRC represent over 50% of the non-connected creditors by value. i.e. if they reject, it fails (based on the rules I have posted and DP included in their CVA proposal for Rangers too).

I believe this to be the case.

[Fife-Hibee]

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

I stuck my neck out when butcher was first touted for the job weeks ago and said to a few yam colleagues that if butcher got the job then we wouldn't lose to hearts again this season. I stand by that. Butcher won't accept anything less than 100% commitment on the 2nd of jan. This time it's our day. Happy new year yams.

Anyone else think it's going to work out that we get the chance to relegate in march at Tynecastle??

So hope your right :-)

[StevieC]

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

"They don't need HMRC. They only need Ubig and Ukio. That makes up 75% of the vote." - Correct.

"if 50% (of non-connected creditors) reject the CVA it fails.. HMRC represent over 50% of the non-connected creditors" - I believe this to be the case.

You seem to be contradicting yourself? Could you clarify?

[robinp]

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

Just had a look on Kickback and they obviously have a positive spin on this. They are claiming that only individuals count in this rule and not companies. Is it possible they are right?

They could well be right (I dont pretend to know everything). :-)

But, following the definition through, as I posted before, connected with the company can mean an associate. Under definition of associate it mentions associated companies.

Im not posting my opinion as fact, just my opinion. I think it could apply, it might not.