NEILY1874 Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 I still blame you ya fat ****! If you didnt take us to the brink of oblivion then we wouldnt have been so quick to sell our souls to the unknown. CPR = ****!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgun-Boogie Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Well scribed indeed. Who ate all the Pies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 I know. Imagine if he hadn't sold out to Romanov, we would never have had a season like 2005-06! Seriously, isn't it sad that it took someone who wasn't a Hearts supporter and wasn't from the Scotland (or the UK for that matter) to actually realise some potential in the club and take us forward. Then take us backwards of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 For all the criticisms of Robinson (and there are many) the reason the debt became so high was that he was guilty of backing the football managers JJ & CL and allowed them to sign players on a wage level the club couldn't really afford ie the likes Simpson Niemi Petric Tomascek D.Jackson Mahe Stamp Valois DeVries Maybury Pressley McSwegan and this has continued to the present day in the Romanov era........the fans call this showing 'ambition' and I'd say we are as partly to blame for demanding / expecting better than Hibs, Aberdeen, Dundee Utd etc when our crowds have only been a few K at most above theirs...... That is the whole crux of the matter Hearts attendances & stadium capacity.....we rebuilt the stadium far too small in 1994 and have virtually no meaningful corporate hospitality facilities which sets far too low a ceiling on the maximum revenue the club can generate....every single game at Murrayfield even the friendlies have gathered bigger attendances than could be accommodated in 17'500 Tynecastle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 The main reason the club was on the brink was the inability to plan for SMG not converting the loan stock, which was obvious to all and sundry after the media market crash of 2001 and 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 The main reason the club was on the brink was the inability to plan for SMG not converting the loan stock, which was obvious to all and sundry after the media market crash of 2001 and 2002. Perhaps that is what forced the issue Geoff however the SMG debt a ?1M per annum repayment on top of the ?20M already owed....high player salaries is what grew the debt to that level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Perhaps that is what forced the issue Geoff however the SMG debt a ?1M per annum repayment on top of the ?20M already owed....high player salaries is what grew the debt to that level. Salary growth that was expected by SMG as part of their investment. The problem then was that only one player of the investment was sold on a profit (Niemi). The rest was urinated against a brick construction. If HBoS had agreed to fund the SMG repayments, we would be in a different ball game. The fact is that there was no way they could support it, so selling Tynecastle to pay that debt was the only option short of administration and even then that option would have to be pursued in administration. My feeling at that time was that there were too many people protecting their own interests and not enough looking at the interests of HMFC as a whole. I still maintain that view today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford donald Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 our business stratigy is poor,whatever way you look at it.look at petrie at easter road,he has all the players on low wages,cashes in at the right time for them, demands top money for them and gets it.even got more money out of west brom for tony mowbray,now that they are in the premier! the man knows how to run a football club,no doubt about it.agents will tell you,dealing with petrie is like drawing teeth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jackdaddy2008 Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Hibs are sh#@e. You are right about teeth, I have always thought he was a bit of a dentist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 When the CPR business model is successful ( ) it's called 'speculate to accumulate' with the fans loving it but when it crashes and burns.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Compounding interest on debt is also a hungry mouth to feed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 CL adopted a John Lambie strategy at the crucial point. John Lambie was always in the papers saying 'i'll be on to the chairman as I need a couple more players'. After the SMG disaster/overspend on Tomaschek etc there was still the opportunity to adopt a real cost cutting strategy and work that through with the bank. Unfortunately the choice taken by the Pieman/Levein was to continue to spend way above the club's means. The fans were protesting behind the main stand after the sale of players and demanding that more be spent on players - at the same time that the players were taking so much in wages that the ground would eventually be sold! Levein's nonsense in the press about his massive wage bill cuts didn't help either. Even at the Padre's Orwell debate night - the Pieman suggested that there was still even then an alternative strategy to the sale of the ground and that was real cost cutting and sale of players. He was too scared of first Levein and the fans to actually put through that cost cutting. If there had been some cost cutting , who knows what would have happened then. Perhaps the Bank would have had problems in the current credit crunch and would have forced the sale of the ground. Perhaps the Pieman had the right property strategy - sell to CALA right at the top of the property market. Perhaps the fans would have deserted due to the absence of any good players. Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 CL adopted a John Lambie strategy at the crucial point. John Lambie was always in the papers saying 'i'll be on to the chairman as I need a couple more players'. After the SMG disaster/overspend on Tomaschek etc there was still the opportunity to adopt a real cost cutting strategy and work that through with the bank. Unfortunately the choice taken by the Pieman/Levein was to continue to spend way above the club's means. The fans were protesting behind the main stand after the sale of players and demanding that more be spent on players - at the same time that the players were taking so much in wages that the ground would eventually be sold! Levein's nonsense in the press about his massive wage bill cuts didn't help either. Even at the Padre's Orwell debate night - the Pieman suggested that there was still even then an alternative strategy to the sale of the ground and that was real cost cutting and sale of players. He was too scared of first Levein and the fans to actually put through that cost cutting. If there had been some cost cutting , who knows what would have happened then. Perhaps the Bank would have had problems in the current credit crunch and would have forced the sale of the ground. Perhaps the Pieman had the right property strategy - sell to CALA right at the top of the property market. Perhaps the fans would have deserted due to the absence of any good players. Who knows. Players like Mahe, Stamp, Valois, DeVries etc. were earning way more than what any other non Old Firm SPL teams were paying and they wouldn't have been at Tynecastle otherwise.......latterly many of these players started to develop what is now known as 'vlad-flu' and frequently missed games with mysterious injuries that appeared, disappeared and re-appeared depending upon opposition and cash-flow...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 For all the criticisms of Robinson (and there are many) the reason the debt became so high was that he was guilty of backing the football managers JJ & CL and allowed them to sign players on a wage level the club couldn't really afford ie the likes Simpson Niemi Petric Tomascek D.Jackson Mahe Stamp Valois DeVries Maybury Pressley McSwegan and this has continued to the present day in the Romanov era........the fans call this showing 'ambition' and I'd say we are as partly to blame for demanding / expecting better than Hibs, Aberdeen, Dundee Utd etc when our crowds have only been a few K at most above theirs...... That is the whole crux of the matter Hearts attendances & stadium capacity.....we rebuilt the stadium far too small in 1994 and have virtually no meaningful corporate hospitality facilities which sets far too low a ceiling on the maximum revenue the club can generate....every single game at Murrayfield even the friendlies have gathered bigger attendances than could be accommodated in 17'500 Tynecastle. The fans who booed the pieman for not spending enough on players were the same ones who later booed him for spending too much money. Of course, in his position he should have been more prudent and the 'speculate to accumulate' strategy failed, but most Hearts fans hold a deeply hypocritical position regarding Robinson. (To suggest Craig Levein's spending was a significant contributor to our crisis is absurd and, even if there is a kernel of truth in that accusation, it is the responsibility of the board to appropriately manage the club's finances) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 When the CPR business model is successful ( ) it's called 'speculate to accumulate' with the fans loving it but when it crashes and burns.... Absolutely correct. CPR came in as a well-meaning Jambo determined to do his best for the club. He did get out of his depth by speculating to accumulate and paid the price because he (and the other directors) did not have the wherewithall/will to see off approaches for Niemi and Cameron both of whom were sold under value IMO. They did not own banks to prop them up in times when liquid cash was at a low. This thread begs the question. Who would want to take over HMFC when owners get slated right left and centre on a personal basis when things are not going right on the field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 The fans who booed the pieman for not spending enough on players were the same ones who later booed him for spending too much money. Of course, in his position he should have been more prudent and the 'speculate to accumulate' strategy failed, but most Hearts fans hold a deeply hypocritical position regarding Robinson. (To suggest Craig Levein's spending was a significant contributor to our crisis is absurd and, even if there is a kernel of truth in that accusation, it is the responsibility of the board to appropriately manage the club's finances) The bulk of Hearts debt pre-romanov was accumulated between 1997 and 2004 therefore JJ & CL both had playing squad at a level consistently above what the club could afford - even though CL had his budgets reduced they were still higher than they should have been hence we continually made losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 The bulk of Hearts debt pre-romanov was accumulated between 1997 and 2004 therefore JJ & CL both had playing squad at a level consistently above what the club could afford Just like Vlad then. In fact, he's outdone Robinson, cause he's managed to double the debt, and it only took him 3 years rather than 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Just like Vlad then. In fact, he's outdone Robinson, cause he's managed to double the debt, and it only took him 3 years rather than 7. That is correct JR and the remedy is either lower cost players & selling players or significantly more fans through the turnstiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 That is correct JR and the remedy is either lower cost players & selling players or significantly more fans through the turnstiles. The remedy is simple. Employ a manager who gets value for money for the players you buy, allowing HMFC to stroll to 3rd on a small budget (say 3M - STILL 50% more than the rest of the SPL teams except OF), meaning we make a profit, and the fans are happy, and everyone wants to buy our players. Seems a better plan than spending 12.49 Million to finish fourth, or 10M (guess at last years spend) to finish 8th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDonald Jardine Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Absolutely correct. CPR came in as a well-meaning Jambo determined to do his best for the club. He did get out of his depth by speculating to accumulate and paid the price because he (and the other directors) did not have the wherewithall/will to see off approaches for Niemi and Cameron both of whom were sold under value IMO. They did not own banks to prop them up in times when liquid cash was at a low.This thread begs the question. Who would want to take over HMFC when owners get slated right left and centre on a personal basis when things are not going right on the field? And he left as a pariah determined to hold on for the best price and hold on to his own CE salary for as long as possible. CPR ultimately did very well out of Hearts, financially at least, if not in reputation. How he has the nerve to continue to show his face at Tynecastle is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Or he could swap the debt for equity and wipe it out. The thing that everyone forgets is though, that if he took this course of action, he would own well over 90% of the club and could close it down on a whim just as easily if he wished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Or he could swap the debt for equity and wipe it out. The thing that everyone forgets is though, that if he took this course of action, he would own well over 90% of the club and could close it down on a whim just as easily if he wished. Can he not do that now anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Finishing 3rd keeps fans reasonably happy and we did this in 1998 & 2000 & 2003 & 2004 but it doesn't keep the bank manager happy if it costs more than the club can afford as it did in each of those years and losses continue to pile up - I understand why you want the football part of the equation solved (we all do) but even though we were relatively successful in a football sense in those years financially we were in an (increasingly) bad position - we were buying our success at a time when most of the rest of the SPL was forced into scaling back to a lot more sensible levels than we ever did. What Jefferies & Levein achieved was unsustainable without an external source of finance - this remains true today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Can he not do that now anyway? Indeed. The point is that those who think that Vlad is going to walk away anyway quote the "debt" figure as the reason. If there was no debt, there are circumstances where the club could disappear just as easily. Therefore, the point I'm making is that the debt is not an issue provided he is happy to hold it and fund it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Indeed. The point is that those who think that Vlad is going to walk away anyway quote the "debt" figure as the reason. If there was no debt, there are circumstances where the club could disappear just as easily. Therefore, the point I'm making is that the debt is not an issue provided he is happy to hold it and fund it. The debt is likely to be the reason he is still here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Indeed. The point is that those who think that Vlad is going to walk away anyway quote the "debt" figure as the reason. If there was no debt, there are circumstances where the club could disappear just as easily. Therefore, the point I'm making is that the debt is not an issue provided he is happy to hold it and fund it. Seems to me that the bigger the debt, the harder it's gonna be to find someone else to take over WHEN Vlad leaves (be it this year, next year, or next decade - like all owners, he will leave one day). That will be the day of reckoning IMO, and i'd be happier if the debt was lower rather than higher (as I think we'd then get a buyer more easily) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Seems to me that the bigger the debt, the harder it's gonna be to find someone else to take over WHEN Vlad leaves (be it this year, next year, or next decade - like all owners, he will leave one day). That will be the day of reckoning IMO, and i'd be happier if the debt was lower rather than higher (as I think we'd then get a buyer more easily) IMO Vlad can't leave when the debt is too high as he effectively loses money. Unless he is prepared to take a big loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Seems to me that the bigger the debt, the harder it's gonna be to find someone else to take over WHEN Vlad leaves (be it this year, next year, or next decade - like all owners, he will leave one day). That will be the day of reckoning IMO, and i'd be happier if the debt was lower rather than higher (as I think we'd then get a buyer more easily) The likelihood is that Vlad will have to take a 'haircut' if he wishes to sell the club. Which is why I'll be quite delighted if a big shiny new stand goes up. It makes it even less attractive for the Tynecastle site to be redeveloped into something else and the only business likely to be 'viable' there is a football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 IMO Vlad can't leave when the debt is too high as he effectively loses money. Unless he is prepared to take a big loss. Yeah - I guess it depends how much he can sell players/land etc for before he goes. Agree with Geoff also that the stand being built would be a good sign. However, like most of the "good sounding" things we're told are gonna happen "soon" at HMFC, it seems I'm still waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownkg Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 The stand will be the turning point but I don't suppose even we would be astupid to start buildig prior to planning being granted. To get back to the original point CPR lined his pockets nicely out of us and stills tries to pepetrate the myth that he was altrusitic like he wasn't on the take for contracts signed. I cannot believe he stays around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Actually, it's Adam's fault!!! ........................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Actually, it's Adam's fault!!! ........................ What about the snake or the lady? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.