The generic Hearts thread

[greenginger]

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

Why wouldn’t they need to declare where the money came from in their financials form a money laundering or financial crime perspective?

I’ve noticed something a bit unusual with the FoH accounts submitted to companies house.

Tenon were their original accountants and when they went pop in 2013 Scot Moncrieff were appointed and produced their accounts until 2017.

Then the 2018 accounts have Scott Moncrieff’s name on the front cover and they are listed as the FoH accountants , but there is no report or signature from them. Also the spaces for the FoH directors signatures are blank. In other words they have submitted unsigned accounts.

The most recent accounts for 2019 have been signed by their directors but there is not reference to any independent accountants, so I presume they are doing their accounts themselves.

Nothing wrong with that, but when you consider the £ 100,000 s in d.ds and cow stuffing funds etc you would expect some kind of independent check.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I’ve noticed something a bit unusual with the FoH accounts submitted to companies house.

Tenon were their original accountants and when they went pop in 2013 Scot Moncrieff were appointed and produced their accounts until 2017.

Then the 2018 accounts have Scott Moncrieff’s name on the front cover and they are listed as the FoH accountants , but there is no report or signature from them. Also the spaces for the FoH directors signatures are blank. In other words they have submitted unsigned accounts.

The most recent accounts for 2019 have been signed by their directors but there is not reference to any independent accountants, so I presume they are doing their accounts themselves.

Nothing wrong with that, but when you consider the £ 100,000 s in d.ds and cow stuffing funds etc you would expect some kind of independent check.

Independent reviews are discretionary, at that level of income. The extent to which the accounts have been "checked" will be agreed between FOH and SM.

On the lack of signatures issue, I suspect this is a presentation issue. Very few accounts of small companies these days have "actual" signatures on them, as most are electronically submitted. CH only seem to be insistent on there being a name and a date.

[brog]

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

Independent reviews are discretionary, at that level of income. The extent to which the accounts have been "checked" will be agreed between FOH and SM.

On the lack of signatures issue, I suspect this is a presentation issue. Very few accounts of small companies these days have "actual" signatures on them, as most are electronically submitted. CH only seem to be insistent on there being a name and a date.

Spoilsport! Can you not retire again?

[hibbyfraelibby]

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

I’ve noticed something a bit unusual with the FoH accounts submitted to companies house.

Tenon were their original accountants and when they went pop in 2013 Scot Moncrieff were appointed and produced their accounts until 2017.

Then the 2018 accounts have Scott Moncrieff’s name on the front cover and they are listed as the FoH accountants , but there is no report or signature from them. Also the spaces for the FoH directors signatures are blank. In other words they have submitted unsigned accounts.

The most recent accounts for 2019 have been signed by their directors but there is not reference to any independent accountants, so I presume they are doing their accounts themselves.

Nothing wrong with that, but when you consider the £ 100,000 s in d.ds and cow stuffing funds etc you would expect some kind of independent check.

I think you'll find Companies House moved to on-line filing in their Beta site a few years back and companies can now complete and submit their returns on line with all documents essentially digitally signed.

[greenginger]

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

Independent reviews are discretionary, at that level of income. The extent to which the accounts have been "checked" will be agreed between FOH and SM.

On the lack of signatures issue, I suspect this is a presentation issue. Very few accounts of small companies these days have "actual" signatures on them, as most are electronically submitted. CH only seem to be insistent on there being a name and a date.

Thanks for that Crops.

Are you saying Scot Moncrieff could still be checking their accounts even without any mention of their name ?

[Partyraiser]

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

So Legal action it is she has two QC on board no less.
Restriction of trading being one of the claims.

Enter the legal guys

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Have they no limited their own ability to trade by finishing bottom of the league?! They're behaving like they've been relegated after finishing 10th, fuds!

[Fuzzywuzzy]

I've just seen a headline saying budge will have hearts to the fans not sell it to fillet. Am I being thick but it's not hers to sell? Has it not already gone to foh and she's just the custodian on their say so?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Thanks for that Crops.

Are you saying Scot Moncrieff could still be checking their accounts even without any mention of their name ?

They will probably be preparing them as well.

There's no need to put one's name on accounts these days, either..... and some accountants might prefer to keep their name out of things.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I've just seen a headline saying budge will have hearts to the fans not sell it to fillet. Am I being thick but it's not hers to sell? Has it not already gone to foh and she's just the custodian on their say so?

She still owns the shares, but there is a binding agreement to transfer them to FOH..

[007]

[QUOTE=mjhibby;6187215]

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

This clause she mentions (emergency situation where board can overturn vote) does anyone know whether it exists?
The rules are online but I couldn’t find anything, although not sure if I was looking in right place!
I find it unbelievable that a club chairperson would refer to it in a media interview without checking its existence.

The board can’t overturn a vote of the clubs. She is just deluded. As Doncaster has said,many many times,the board acts on the clubs behalf and only the clubs can change anything. She’s like the queen mum at royal ascot after a sherry too many.🤣🤣

It is another feeble tactic, in amongst many other feeble tactics. She is trying to plant a seed in clubs' minds "If the proposal doesn't get the required votes, the SPFL will push it through anyway so we might as well vote in favour of it."
Like every other tactic it will backfire as the CEOs/chairpersons etc will see through it and it will cost more votes than it will gain.

If there really was such a clause then she'd have been definite about it rather than the vague guff she spouted. Tom English and the other 'journalists' would have looked up the rules after hearing her interview and there would be umpteen articles today with it. In fact, as bad as journos are these days, I'm sure one of them would have found it before now and printed it.

[Onion]

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

Given Anne's latest fudge seems doomed to failure, a big call is coming her way on whether to launch legal action. I suspect after the usual bluster she won't. It would cause massive aggro and create lasting hostility towards Hearts from the majority of clubs.

If she does, her chances of success must be slim given she would be trying to overturn the vote of a members organisation.

Even on the slim chance she succeeded, the best she would get is either a re-run of the SPFL vote (which would likely result in a bigger majority for, as clubs will be well p1ssed off with Hearts), or compo.

Don't think being a member of a football association is a legal or god-given right - even if you do meet the requirements for membership or currently a member. You don't want it to come to this, but I'd have thought the SPFL Board have the right to terminate membership of any club from the SPFL for gross misconduct or continually bringing the game into disrepute. Taking legal action against all the other members for following the rules through a democratic process may be enough for the SPFL to cancel Hearts membership and kick them out of Scottish football all together.

Hearts give the impression that all the legal power lies in their hands and the the SPFL can only defend. Bet it's not.

[Jones28]

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

Don't think being a member of a football association is a legal or god-given right - even if you do meet the requirements for membership or currently a member. You don't want it to come to this, but I'd have thought the SPFL Board have the right to terminate membership of any club from the SPFL for gross misconduct or continually bringing the game into disrepute. Taking legal action against all the other members for following the rules through a democratic process may be enough for the SPFL to cancel Hearts membership and kick them out of Scottish football all together.

Hearts give the impression that all the legal power lies in their hands and the the SPFL can only defend. Bet it's not.

I’m sure I read early on in this debacle that bringing a legal claim against the organisation meant suspension of membership with possible expulsion.

[jacomo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52843453

“Budge steps up legal threat”

Back page headline of The Scotsman.

There seems no strategy at all - she’s just throwing s*** at the wall and hoping something sticks. It’s laughable.

Memo to Budge: a number of Scottish clubs are facing real financial problems. Threatening them with more financial difficulty is not a good strategy.

[Kato]

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

cancel Hearts membership and kick them out of Scottish football all together.

It would be a real shame if it came to that but if it did I for one would support the SPFL 110%. :fingerscrossedsmiley:


Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[007]

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

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52843453

“Budge steps up legal threat”

Back page headline of The Scotsman.

There seems no strategy at all - she’s just throwing s*** at the wall and hoping something sticks. It’s laughable.

Memo to Budge: a number of Scottish clubs are facing real financial problems. Threatening them with more financial difficulty is not a good strategy.

Just what I thought, she'll keep ramping up the threats because the threats are the last throw of the dice.

[Dalianwanda]

Due to St Patrick banishing them all hundreds of years ago from this island i never get the chance to bump into one unless home. Please someone tell me that kickback isn’t representative of the common hearts fan? vindictive,petty,hate filled, suspicious spiteful bunch there. Tell me there has to be some slightly more balanced ones kicking about?

[hibbyfraelibby]

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

Due to St Patrick banishing them all hundreds of years ago i never get the chance to bump into one unless home. Please someone tell me that kickback isn’t representative of the common hearts fan? vindictive,petty,hate filled, suspicious spiteful bunch there. Tell me there has to be some slightly more balanced ones kicking about?

They are the balanced ones...the rest don't even have opposable thumbs.

[JimBHibees]

Spfl need to set a date take a vote and put Hearts out their misery.

It is the way it is going but needs a conclusion especially when league is now starting on August 1st.

Get the impression SPFL has played a blinder and gives Hearts enough rope to hing themselves with.

[Ronniekirk]

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

You couldn’t make this up. She should really take the appropriate advice prior to rambling on after one too many Gins.

The sooner this proposal is booted into touch the better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But it hasn’t mate and that’s what is giving her all this attention


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onion]

Budge thing has dragged longer than Covid isolation but will start to resolve once fixture list for 20/21 is released. Hearts will be paired with a heap of other sub-standard teams, relegated on merit (as UEFA state) and as welcomed in the Championship as fresh fish in Shawshanks.

I honestly think Budge has lost her mind and will be talking about legal action, reconstruction, doing the right thing blah blah blah in October when the Premier League has already played a bunch pf games and everyone else has moved on.

The background noise of Budge will be as relevant as a Sevco Statement.

[Sioux]

In one fell swoop, here is the delusion that affects out neighbours:

"I think it's more that we realise that Ann is a person with empathy, who actually cares how her actions affect other folk. I for one was concerned that she might bow out of legal action because she was worried about the knock-on effects of such action on Scottish football. However, I can imagine that she was absolutely spitting tacks at the "I'm Alright Jack" decision made by the SPFL clubs, an unjust decision which effectively threw us to the dogs and created a threat to our existence, and so I think, despite that empathy, she decided that the gloves were off. There's only so much you can push someone around.

Even then, she's still offering testing facilities etc. to smaller clubs. That's the way she is. She has made mistakes but she's a good person, and that's one of the things that makes me so angry at the folk in the media and from other clubs who are continuing to have unwarranted pops at her. "Oh, she's just doing it for Hearts!". Nope. That may be the way that her detractors approach their lives, but it's not the way Ann does."

There is no help available for these idiots.

[brog]

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

In one fell swoop, here is the delusion that affects out neighbours:

"I think it's more that we realise that Ann is a person with empathy, who actually cares how her actions affect other folk. I for one was concerned that she might bow out of legal action because she was worried about the knock-on effects of such action on Scottish football. However, I can imagine that she was absolutely spitting tacks at the "I'm Alright Jack" decision made by the SPFL clubs, an unjust decision which effectively threw us to the dogs and created a threat to our existence, and so I think, despite that empathy, she decided that the gloves were off. There's only so much you can push someone around.

Even then, she's still offering testing facilities etc. to smaller clubs. That's the way she is. She has made mistakes but she's a good person, and that's one of the things that makes me so angry at the folk in the media and from other clubs who are continuing to have unwarranted pops at her. "Oh, she's just doing it for Hearts!". Nope. That may be the way that her detractors approach their lives, but it's not the way Ann does."

There is no help available for these idiots.

That reads like a Kiwi Doug missive. Maybe they have a template to copy!

[Joe6-2]

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

Spoilsport! Can you not retire again?

Ha ha
Don’t say that tho, love that he’s back!

[Rumble de Thump]

Was there ever a time when Hearts fans weren't deluded?

[Eyrie]

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

In one fell swoop, here is the delusion that affects out neighbours:

"I think it's more that we realise that Ann is a person with empathy, who actually cares how her actions affect other folk. I for one was concerned that she might bow out of legal action because she was worried about the knock-on effects of such action on Scottish football. However, I can imagine that she was absolutely spitting tacks at the "I'm Alright Jack" decision made by the SPFL clubs, an unjust decision which effectively threw us to the dogs and created a threat to our existence, and so I think, despite that empathy, she decided that the gloves were off. There's only so much you can push someone around.

Even then, she's still offering testing facilities etc. to smaller clubs. That's the way she is. She has made mistakes but she's a good person, and that's one of the things that makes me so angry at the folk in the media and from other clubs who are continuing to have unwarranted pops at her. "Oh, she's just doing it for Hearts!". Nope. That may be the way that her detractors approach their lives, but it's not the way Ann does."

There is no help available for these idiots.

I've posted less obvious crap than that on Kickback.

[FilipinoHibs]

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

Was there ever a time when Hearts fans weren't deluded?

1970s - they were embarrassed about their team and quiet.

[JohnMcM]

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

They are the balanced ones...the rest don't even have opposable thumbs.

[Iggy Pope]

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

1970s - they were embarrassed about their team and quiet.

You’re joking. Derbies in the mid to late 70s were riots.

[660]

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

I've posted less obvious crap than that on Kickback.

If that poster is undercover, that post is genuinely a work of genius.

[jacomo]

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

In one fell swoop, here is the delusion that affects out neighbours:

"I think it's more that we realise that Ann is a person with empathy, who actually cares how her actions affect other folk. I for one was concerned that she might bow out of legal action because she was worried about the knock-on effects of such action on Scottish football. However, I can imagine that she was absolutely spitting tacks at the "I'm Alright Jack" decision made by the SPFL clubs, an unjust decision which effectively threw us to the dogs and created a threat to our existence, and so I think, despite that empathy, she decided that the gloves were off. There's only so much you can push someone around.

Even then, she's still offering testing facilities etc. to smaller clubs. That's the way she is. She has made mistakes but she's a good person, and that's one of the things that makes me so angry at the folk in the media and from other clubs who are continuing to have unwarranted pops at her. "Oh, she's just doing it for Hearts!". Nope. That may be the way that her detractors approach their lives, but it's not the way Ann does."

There is no help available for these idiots.

Sounds like another Budge sock puppet account to me.

If she’s not telling the world what a delightful person she is, she seems to be doing that via proxy.