Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

[Inch Hibs]

Can BDO request the direct debit cash from the Foundation of chumps before exiting administration if money is drying up or has that been safe guarded to be used only by them when they exit admin?

[Judas Iscariot]

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

Can BDO request the direct debit cash from the Foundation of chumps before exiting administration if money is drying up or has that been safe guarded to be used only by them when they exit admin?

Safe guarded until after

[The_Todd]

I suppose they can ask but dipping out of FOHs funds will leave FOH short for when they need it.

Also it'd just be proof that Hearts are not a viable business if they need another 'donation'

[The Falcon]

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

Then why on earth is Barry Anderson and the rest of the Scottish media piping up then? Surely they wouldn't just come out with this "their saved" mantra if they hadn't actually heard something. I mean as difficult as it is to believe journalists are educated so surely they can figure out that it's Lithuanian law that sees these shares frozen and that because of this their is nothing hearts can do?

I wonder if the media would hold the same view if some insignificant Lithuanian team had pumped a Scottish bank for £70m of their money? Would they be as sympathetic to their plight?

[nribs]

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

Can BDO request the direct debit cash from the Foundation of chumps before exiting administration if money is drying up or has that been safe guarded to be used only by them when they exit admin?

Surely when the diddies signed up they must have been advised this money was for when they came out of admin, not to try and buy their way out of admin?

[jacomo]

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

Can BDO request the direct debit cash from the Foundation of chumps before exiting administration if money is drying up or has that been safe guarded to be used only by them when they exit admin?

I have always been a little unsure about this.

The explanation on FoH's website says that:

The funds will be used for:

The financing of the purchase of the majority shareholding in HoMplc; and
Other legitimate purposes/projects, subject to board and membership approval, which will assist in ensuring the financial stability and/or the betterment of HoMplc.

http://www.foundationofhearts.org/faqs/

That "other legitimate purposes" clause seems to give them a fair bit of leeway to use the funds in other ways, such as propping up the club this season... "subject to board and membership approval".

[greiang]

Forgive my ignorance on this topic. I've tried to read as many pages of this thread as I can, but 1237 pages is just too many for me to digest.

Can someone explain to me who actually owns Tynecastle the ground? Is the ground ownership part of FoH's CVA agreement, or are they simply looking to take over the running of the club, but won't own the ground they're playing on?

If Ubig & Ukio are both in liquidation, are the liquidators for these companies looking to sell the ground to recoup money for their creditors?

[poolman]

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

A rubber stamp, yesterday:-

http://bowtielaw.files.wordpress.com...bber-stamp.jpg

[Inch Hibs]

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

Safe guarded until after

Cheers mate.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Forgive my ignorance on this topic. I've tried to read as many pages of this thread as I can, but 1237 pages is just too many for me to digest.

Can someone explain to me who actually owns Tynecastle the ground? Is the ground ownership part of FoH's CVA agreement, or are they simply looking to take over the running of the club, but won't own the ground they're playing on?

If Ubig & Ukio are both in liquidation, are the liquidators for these companies looking to sell the ground to recoup money for their creditors?

Hearts own Tynecastle.

If the CVA goes through, Hearts will still own it. FOH will be the owners of Hearts. That purchase will have been financed by the backers, who will be repaid (in theory) by the Direct Debits.

I would expect that the finance will be secured over Tynecastle, so that if it all goes Pete Tong again the backers can take it over.

[Inch Hibs]

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

I have always been a little unsure about this.

The explanation on FoH's website says that:

The funds will be used for:

The financing of the purchase of the majority shareholding in HoMplc; and
Other legitimate purposes/projects, subject to board and membership approval, which will assist in ensuring the financial stability and/or the betterment of HoMplc.

http://www.foundationofhearts.org/faqs/

That "other legitimate purposes" clause seems to give them a fair bit of leeway to use the funds in other ways, such as propping up the club this season... "subject to board and membership approval".

So many loopholes as their track record of avoiding the ***** tells me if they wanted they would use that money.

[Spike Mandela]

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

Hearts own Tynecastle.

If the CVA goes through, Hearts will still own it. FOH will be the owners of Hearts. That purchase will have been financed by the backers, who will be repaid (in theory) by the Direct Debits.

I would expect that the finance will be secured over Tynecastle, so that if it all goes Pete Tong again the backers can take it over.

These securities don't appear to be worth the paper they are written on. Did UKIO not have a security over Tynecastle to the value of £6.8m?

[Inch Hibs]

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

Hearts own Tynecastle.

If the CVA goes through, Hearts will still own it. FOH will be the owners of Hearts. That purchase will have been financed by the backers, who will be repaid (in theory) by the Direct Debits.

I would expect that the finance will be secured over Tynecastle, so that if it all goes Pete Tong again the backers can take it over.

Another thing I've never understood is why they where allowed to go I to administration and bump loads of companies/charities without being told to sell assets ie the crumbling ****hole to raise funds? It's surely not right they bump loads of companies and still own assets worth a few million?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Another thing I've never understood is why they where allowed to go I to administration and bump loads of companies/charities without being told to sell assets ie the crumbling ****hole to raise funds? It's surely not right they bump loads of companies and still own assets worth a few million?

Had they done that, UKIO would have got all the money that the sale raised. They have security over Tynecastle.

Since Vlad stopped supporting Hearts financially, I can't think of a credible scenario whereby the small creditors would have been paid.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

These securities don't appear to be worth the paper they are written on. Did UKIO not have a security over Tynecastle to the value of £6.8m?

The difference with this one is that the security will "only" be for a couple of million. That loan should be covered by the value of Tynie.

[Inch Hibs]

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

Had they done that, UKIO would have got all the money that the sale raised. They have security over Tynecastle.

Since Vlad stopped supporting Hearts financially, I can't think of a credible scenario whereby the small creditors would have been paid.

I see, fair do's. Why didn't ukios admin or temp admin demand this then? Seems like they just say back said zip now getting paid peanuts?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I see, fair do's. Why didn't ukios admin or temp admin demand this then? Seems like they just say back said zip now getting paid peanuts?

Had they demanded that, ie by calling in their security, HMFC would have gone into administration immediately. So the end result would have been the same.

[Inch Hibs]

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

Had they demanded that, ie by calling in their security, HMFC would have gone into administration immediately. So the end result would have been the same.

Should have done it anyway IMO :)

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Should have done it anyway IMO :)

Actually, I am thinking that it wouldn't have been administration, it would have been liquidation.

Only they can say why they didn't do it. Perhaps they thought that they would get the full value of their security. In hindsight, that may have been a poor choice.

[Hank Schrader]

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

Should have done it anyway IMO :)

Iv an inkling that the administration process is going to drag on for a while yet.

[Jack]

About the subsequent points penalty.

I've just had a look at what happened to Dunfermline. It looks like they took their hit last season which in effect put them down.

In the close season, July, their CVA was agreed and they were on their way out of administration but didn't actually do so until December. There was no points deduction this season.

So. No further forward there then unless an agreed CVA is taken as that 'exiting administration event' and they escaped the further points deduction that way. I do seem to recall there being a bit of a hiccup when they had to go back to court and a further points deduction was mentioned but I'm not sure how official that all was.

With regard to the UBIG shares, and possibly the UKIO ones. Am I right in thinking that some of these shares will have been acquired in the debt for equity swaps? £20+ million worth?

Another hazy memory is that this was a bit dodgy so perhaps how these came about will be the subject of more legal scrutiny than might otherwise have been in the already #allverycomplicated legal proceedings.

A dodgy UK company, the yams; dodgy Lithuanian companies; dodgy share transfer. Anyone any idea which country any court case would be heard in?

[Seveno]

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

About the subsequent points penalty.

I've just had a look at what happened to Dunfermline. It looks like they took their hit last season which in effect put them down.

In the close season, July, their CVA was agreed and they were on their way out of administration but didn't actually do so until December. There was no points deduction this season.

So. No further forward there then unless an agreed CVA is taken as that 'exiting administration event' and they escaped the further points deduction that way. I do seem to recall there being a bit of a hiccup when they had to go back to court and a further points deduction was mentioned but I'm not sure how official that all was.

With regard to the UBIG shares, and possibly the UKIO ones. Am I right in thinking that some of these shares will have been acquired in the debt for equity swaps? £20+ million worth?

Another hazy memory is that this was a bit dodgy so perhaps how these came about will be the subject of more legal scrutiny than might otherwise have been in the already #allverycomplicated legal proceedings.

A dodgy UK company, the yams; dodgy Lithuanian companies; dodgy share transfer. Anyone any idea which country any court case would be heard in?

My understanding is that the court case will be heard in Dodge City.

[The_Todd]

Jack, Dunfermline May have been treated under old SFL rules which no longer exist. New SPFL rules indicate the Yams would have to exit admin to escape further penalty.

[Crazyhorse]

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

Actually, I am thinking that it wouldn't have been administration, it would have been liquidation.

Only they can say why they didn't do it. Perhaps they thought that they would get the full value of their security. In hindsight, that may have been a poor choice.

This is what I don't quite understand. They seemed to have had the time to exercise that hindsight realise that most return will come from a liquidation but chose not to go down that route. Why not?

[Jack]

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

Jack, Dunfermline May have been treated under old SFL rules which no longer exist. New SPFL rules indicate the Yams would have to exit admin to escape further penalty.

Good good :-)

[GREEN WARLORD]

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

Jack, Dunfermline May have been treated under old SFL rules which no longer exist. New SPFL rules indicate the Yams would have to exit admin to escape further penalty.

Very pleasing, how will Scotlands best crop of youngster cope with such heart ache?

[Just Alf]

Just been looking at how the updated SPFL rules define a "season"

[*] Season means the period of the year commencing on the date of the first League Match in a Season and ending on the date of the last League Match in the same Season or otherwise as determined by the Board and which excludes the Close Season;
[*] Close Season means the period of the year outside the Season


the other bit of interest is

[*] Where an Insolvency Event or in the event that such Insolvency Event is part of an Insolvency Process that process, continues and/or is subsisting during a second or later Season then, for each such second or later Season, during the whole or part of which such Insolvency Event or Insolvency Process is continuing and/or subsisting, the Club concerned shall be deducted 15 points and shall start each such second or later Season in the relevant Division on minus 15 points.

the bit in bold gives me the impression that the Yams have until the start of the new season to get out of Admin

if you can be bothered, here's the link http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__ther...1388495541.pdf

[CropleyWasGod]

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

This is what I don't quite understand. They seemed to have had the time to exercise that hindsight realise that most return will come from a liquidation but chose not to go down that route. Why not?

A few theories have been floated on here:-

1. they have done their homework, and deduced that they won't get any more in a liquidation.

2. they have not done their homework, and have been "persuaded" that they won't get any more in a liquidation.

3. they have known for some time that liquidation is the most likely route, in which case they might get more; approving the CVA is just a political move to make them look less like the bad boys.

I'm not sure which I believe. I'd like to think that 1 is the most likely, but then I'm not privy to the way these guys think.

[greenginger]

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

About the subsequent points penalty.

I've just had a look at what happened to Dunfermline. It looks like they took their hit last season which in effect put them down.

In the close season, July, their CVA was agreed and they were on their way out of administration but didn't actually do so until December. There was no points deduction this season.

So. No further forward there then unless an agreed CVA is taken as that 'exiting administration event' and they escaped the further points deduction that way. I do seem to recall there being a bit of a hiccup when they had to go back to court and a further points deduction was mentioned but I'm not sure how official that all was.

With regard to the UBIG shares, and possibly the UKIO ones. Am I right in thinking that some of these shares will have been acquired in the debt for equity swaps? £20+ million worth?

Another hazy memory is that this was a bit dodgy so perhaps how these came about will be the subject of more legal scrutiny than might otherwise have been in the already #allverycomplicated legal proceedings.

A dodgy UK company, the yams; dodgy Lithuanian companies; dodgy share transfer. Anyone any idea which country any court case would be heard in?

All the Ukio/UBIG Yam shares came into existence through debt for equity swaps.

The original shares that Vlad bought from Deans, Pieman and the simple fans were held by a Company called Heart of Midlothian 2005 Ltd.

That Company has been struck-off and those shares have " Fallen to the Crown "

[Gus Fring]

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

Just been looking at how the updated SPFL rules define a "season"
[*] Season means the period of the year commencing on the date of the first League Match in a Season and ending on the date of the last League Match in the same Season or otherwise as determined by the Board and which excludes the Close Season;[*] Close Season means the period of the year outside the Season


the other bit of interest is
[*] Where an Insolvency Event or in the event that such Insolvency Event is part of an Insolvency Process that process, continues and/or is subsisting during a second or later Season then, for each such second or later Season, during the whole or part of which such Insolvency Event or Insolvency Process is continuing and/or subsisting, the Club concerned shall be deducted 15 points and shall start each such second or later Season in the relevant Division on minus 15 points.

the bit in bold gives me the impression that the Yams have until the start of the new season to get out of Admin

if you can be bothered, here's the link http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__ther...1388495541.pdf

Your impression is correct. A points deduction will only be applicable if they are still in Admin at the start of the 2014/15 season