Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

[Onion]

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

Some great points there TH, but to concentrate on the bold bit and put a bit of context on it, in the seven seasons that 'Mr Romanov' was in charge Hearts spent over £53m more than they brought in (excluding player purchases). That money came from the creditors of HoMFC, UBIG and Ukio and none of it will be paid back. For an average annual turnover of about £8m that is disgraceful, and I haven't even taken into account the share and season ticket scams of the last two years. In the same period Hibs brought in nearly £10m more than they spent and used the money to honour their debts and secure the club's future by consolidating the asset base, all from a slightly lower average annual turnover.

If that's not financial doping nothing is.

That's as good a summary of the two clubs financial positions I've seen IMHO, there's only one reason no paper or journalist has decided to explore this blatant financial doping case.. and that's sales & circulation.

[givescotlandfreedom]

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

At the moment hearts can't even guarantee their future yet they're trying to sign players? Astonishing.

Seeing at they have this spare money it must feel pretty rank for the creditors/charities they stole from to not even be considered.

[Saorsa]

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

They're just not good enough...We knew that anyway, but thanks for the article anyway Michael.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...ality.23160780

Nailed

Fatigue just a tired excuse for side shorn of any quality

They're just pish

[s.a.m]

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

Some great points there TH, but to concentrate on the bold bit and put a bit of context on it, in the seven seasons that 'Mr Romanov' was in charge Hearts spent over £53m more than they brought in (excluding player purchases). That money came from the creditors of HoMFC, UBIG and Ukio and none of it will be paid back. For an average annual turnover of about £8m that is disgraceful, and I haven't even taken into account the share and season ticket scams of the last two years. In the same period Hibs brought in nearly £10m more than they spent and used the money to honour their debts and secure the club's future by consolidating the asset base, all from a slightly lower average annual turnover.

If that's not financial doping nothing is.

You've summed up the situation extremely well there, CG. I'd be delighted if you would forward that to the DR et al.

[MurrayfieldHibs]

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

Some great points there TH, but to concentrate on the bold bit and put a bit of context on it, in the seven seasons that 'Mr Romanov' was in charge Hearts spent over £53m more than they brought in (excluding player purchases). That money came from the creditors of HoMFC, UBIG and Ukio and none of it will be paid back. For an average annual turnover of about £8m that is disgraceful, and I haven't even taken into account the share and season ticket scams of the last two years. In the same period Hibs brought in nearly £10m more than they spent and used the money to honour their debts and secure the club's future by consolidating the asset base, all from a slightly lower average annual turnover.

If that's not financial doping nothing is.

To that £53m you could add the wages (allegedly) paid in Lithuania to some of the 70 strong squad rather than going through HOMFC's books....

[Spike Mandela]

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

Looking at the committee members who are adjudicating :

Ralph Topping (Hibs fan) - on record as wanting clubs to live within their means.

Stephen Thompson (Dundee United owner) - his club were put out a domestic cup last year on penalties, by Hearts, a club paying players with money they didn't have in the end, thus depriving his club, which is in debt, of potential money from a semi/final/win.

Celtic's Eric Riley - Hearts put Celtic out of the Scottish Cup in 2012 - we know how 'Tic like their cups.

Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen) - they argue they are Scottish football's 'third force' - they will argue that their position has been undermined by a club paying players (or not) that they couldn't afford thus depriving them of top 6 football etc.

Les Gray - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18751486 say no more

Mike Mulraney (Alloa) - self interest alone would dictate that Mike would want Hearts in the Championship next season for gate money, etc.

The EEN now even quoting a rule number..........


The SPFL were due to meet today to discuss the matter during a board meeting, however they are certain to refuse to lift the embargo. The only consolation for Hearts could lie in League rule E16.1, which states that a club in administration can apply to register a new player to replace a departing player. The SPFL board would judge any such request on a case-by-case basis.

IMO the odds are now shortening on Hearts signing a new player in this window before us.

[HIBERNIAN-0762]

Deary deary me...don't they ever take their heads out of their jacksies?

Enjoy....

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index....lling-to-join/

[Ronniekirk]

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

The EEN now even quoting a rule number..........


The SPFL were due to meet today to discuss the matter during a board meeting, however they are certain to refuse to lift the embargo. The only consolation for Hearts could lie in League rule E16.1, which states that a club in administration can apply to register a new player to replace a departing player. The SPFL board would judge any such request on a case-by-case basis.

IMO the odds are now shortening on Hearts signing a new player in this window before us.

That rule has been known about and agree it will be allowed on a case by case basis only .so if the sell on an under 21 player who doesn't then get loaned back to them then fair enough sign an under 21 player to replace him .Like for Like .However don't let them sign an experienced player.even if they kid us on they are playing for nothing . No doubt hearts will say they can't get a like for like player in and that's where they will be looking to bend the rule ie cheat further .It shouldn't be ,and won't be ,allowed to Happen .

[Spike Mandela]

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

That rule has been known about and agree it will be allowed on a case by case basis only .so if the sell on an under 21 player who doesn't then get loaned back to them then fair enough sign an under 21 player to replace him .Like for Like .However don't let them sign an experienced player.even if they kid us on they are playing for nothing . No doubt hearts will say they can't get a like for like player in and that's where they will be looking to bend the rule ie cheat further .It shouldn't be ,and won't be ,allowed to Happen .

First time I 've heard this rule mentioned. Previously it had only been stated tha a club could sign a player only in 'exceptional circumstances' on a case by case basis.

Let's face it in terms of window signings 'one in one out' is pretty much what most clubs do anyway so is that not effectively lifting the ban?

[Ronniekirk]

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

Deary deary me...don't they ever take their heads out of their jacksies?

Enjoy....
http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index....lling-to-join/

Just looked at it The avatar on Purfleet. Sums it up continuing to make Tits of themselves Big style.

[jonty]

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

Love the quote this morning in the Scotsman. "If the scottish premiership were the solar system then Hearts would be somewhere beyond Pluto".

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

Does that mean that they've become Mickey Mouse?

Uranus, surely?

[Ronniekirk]

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

First time I 've heard this rule mentioned. Previously it had only been stated tha a club could sign a player only in 'exceptional circumstances' on a case by case basis.

Let's face it in terms of window signings 'one in one out' is pretty much what most clubs do anyway so is that not effectively lifting the ban?

It's the exceptional case bit that they are pushing So think with injuries piling up they might get go ahead on that basis but only if they sell a player and are struggling to have a full bench which they have not had on a few occasions . if they weren't going to allow something why let them go back in first place and waste everyone's time It said they were going back after consultation with someone at Hampden . Unless of course it was someone with Hibs connection winding them up .Now there a thought

[HIBERNIAN-0762]

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

Just looked at it The avatar on Purfleet. Sums it up continuing to make Tits of themselves Big style.

[JeMeSouviens]

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

The EEN now even quoting a rule number..........


The SPFL were due to meet today to discuss the matter during a board meeting, however they are certain to refuse to lift the embargo. The only consolation for Hearts could lie in League rule E16.1, which states that a club in administration can apply to register a new player to replace a departing player. The SPFL board would judge any such request on a case-by-case basis.

IMO the odds are now shortening on Hearts signing a new player in this window before us.

The full rule is:

E16

Except with the consent of the Board and that only where the Board is in its sole
discretion satisfied that:

E16.1
the term of a Player’s contract of service with his Club has expired and
such contract has not been renewed or extended or such a contract has
terminated with the mutual consent in writing of the Club and the Player
concerned and, in either case, the Registration of such Player with the
League in terms of the player Registration, Transfer and Contract
Regulations has been cancelled and a replacement Player is sought to be
registered to replace the Player whose contract has so expired or been
terminated; or

E16.2
where the Player sought to be registered is a temporary replacement for a
goalkeeper who is unable by reason of injury or illness to play and that
only where written confirmation of such inability shall have been obtained
by the Club from a qualified medical practitioner and submitted to the
Board and the Board is satisfied that the Club concerned has no other
goalkeeper who is registered and able to play, and

E16.3
in either case the board is satisfied that notwithstanding the Insolvency
Event it is appropriate that the club concerned be permitted to Register
the player sought to be Registered,


where a Club has taken, suffered or has been subject to an Insolvency Event or
Events or a Group Undertaking of a Club has taken, suffered or has been subject to
an Insolvency Event or Events and the Board has determined that Rule E6
shall apply, that Club shall not be entitled or permitted to register any Player with the
League and the League shall not register such a Player until the Board is satisfied
that such Insolvency Event or events shall no longer continue or subsist.

[Geo_1875]

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

It's the exceptional case bit that they are pushing So think with injuries piling up they might get go ahead on that basis but only if they sell a player and are struggling to have a full bench which they have not had on a few occasions . if they weren't going to allow something why let them go back in first place and waste everyone's time It said they were going back after consultation with someone at Hampden . Unless of course it was someone with Hibs connection winding them up .Now there a thought

Exceptional circumstances have only applied before when a team are without a recognised goalkeeper due to injury. They are then allowed to sign a keeper on a short term loan. Having 38 registered professional footballers I doubt HoMFC will meet the exceptional circumstances criteria.

[Spike Mandela]

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

The full rule is:

E16.1
the term of a Player’s contract of service with his Club has expired and
such contract has not been renewed or extended or such a contract has
terminated with the mutual consent in writing of the Club and the Player
concerned and, in either case, the Registration of such Player with the
League in terms of the player Registration, Transfer and Contract
Regulations has been cancelled and a replacement Player is sought to be
registered to replace the Player whose contract has so expired or been
terminated

Usual legales to wade through bit in a nutshell is it if they sell a player or terminate a contract they can bring a player in? Surely if it's that easy to get round the embargo what are they bleating about. Or,is this section relevent to a whole different scenario?

[Ronniekirk]

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

Exceptional circumstances have only applied before when a team are without end to appt a recognised goalkeeper due to injury. They are then allowed to sign a keeper on a short term loan. Having 38 registered professional footballers I doubt HoMFC will meet the exceptional circumstances criteria.

Tend to agree in which case whole thing was futile and why waste peoples time

[Onion]

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

First time I 've heard this rule mentioned. Previously it had only been stated tha a club could sign a player only in 'exceptional circumstances' on a case by case basis.

Let's face it in terms of window signings 'one in one out' is pretty much what most clubs do anyway so is that not effectively lifting the ban?

Exactly. The Yams have shown through their disgraceful management that they have no respect for the normal rules of business. Their years of financial doping has brought the club to its knees and it now needs to accept that those days are well and truly over. They are no longer a "Big Club" with big ambitions. Nor do they deserve to sit at the top table. They should be concentrating on their survival and life in the lower leagues. The fact that they have been allowed a year in the SPFL under Administration has been shown to be overly generous. They should have been relegated last year - for their own good and the good of the SPFL. Only those clubs who have and continue to run their businesses in a prudent and responsible way should be allowed trade normally. The Yams should be told to shove it, and be thankful that the authorities did not strip them of titles/trophies or fine them heavily !

[Geo_1875]

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

Tend to agree in which case whole thing was futile and why waste peoples time

It gives them someone else to blame for the **** they are in.

[Ronniekirk]

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

E16.1
the term of a Player’s contract of service with his Club has expired and
such contract has not been renewed or extended or such a contract has
terminated with the mutual consent in writing of the Club and the Player
concerned and, in either case, the Registration of such Player with the
League in terms of the player Registration, Transfer and Contract
Regulations has been cancelled and a replacement Player is sought to be
registered to replace the Player whose contract has so expired or been
terminated

Usual legales to wade through bit in a nutshell is it if they sell a player or terminate a contract they can bring a player in? Surely if it's that easy to get round the embargo what are they bleating about. Or,is this section relevent to a whole different scenario?

Thanks for clarifying that rule but yes begs question why do they need to go to a hearing to get what's already legislated for Think it must be they are trying to argue exceptional circumstances could be something along the lines of Most weeks we are P--- ,but some other weeks circumstances mean we are exceptionally P---. Help !!!!!!!

[hibees 7062]

If Hearts are so concerned for player safety, then why did they not exercise the option available to every club of taking a 2 week break in January?

[haagsehibby]

If I understood correctly, I thought there is an embargo from the SPFL for entering administration which lasts until administration is exited and another embargo from the SFA lasting until 1st February for the non payment of wages. So, even if the the SPFL agree to their appeal then the SFA ban still exists for this transfer window.

However, it's perfectly possible that I'm mistaken !

[Spike Mandela]

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

If I understood correctly, I thought there is an embargo from the SPFL for entering administration which lasts until administration is exited and another embargo from the SFA lasting until 1st February for the non payment of wages. So, even if the the SPFL agree to their appeal then the SFA ban still exists for this transfer window.

However, it's perfectly possible that I'm mistaken !

Yeah but all the players they will want to sign will be available Feb 1st.

[HibeeMG]

So, when do we find out whether they've been told to shut up and man up or whether the powers-that-be have folded to the media pressure?

[Winston Ingram]

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

So, when do we find out whether they've been told to shut up and man up or whether the powers-that-be have folded to the media pressure?

This on JKB

View PostDannie Boy, on 13 January 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:
Ban lifted in February no conformation yet but will up date when I can.

[dangermouse]

That will relate to the SFA ban which ends on 1st February surely?

[HibeeMG]

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

This on JKB

Is the poor wee flower no getting a bit confuddled?

The ban for non-payment of wages ends at the beginning of February. The administration one carries on until they exit administration.

I know you know this. That was purely for any lurking Yams.

[s.a.m]

Euan McLean ‏@Euanmc1 7m SPFL announcement on Hearts imminent. Assured the meeting is almost concluded.
Retweeted by George Foulkes

[Andy74]

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

Is the poor wee flower no getting a bit confuddled?

The ban for non-payment of wages ends at the beginning of February. The administration one carries on until they exit administration.

I know you know this. That was purely for any lurking Yams.

I think both relate to administration.

The embargo whilst in it is automatic. The other was a punishment which was given to them for entering administration. It could have been a fine or a further embargo.

I think the non payment of wages was never actually addressed sentence wise this time.

[blackpoolhibs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21061338


Lucky *******s.