h1ghlander Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Interesting article from the Scotsman http://sport.scotsman.com/football/Hearts-owner-Romanov-playing-the.4144467.jp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werwolf Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Interesting article from the Scotsman [ Now that's a phrase you don't hear often Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Winstone Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Very interesting indeed. Suggesting Hearts fans can be "relaxed" about the debt. He presumes however that the trasfer fees will go on servicing the debt. Interesting also that Screpis is only on 1500 per week. It seems there has been a stop in offering ridiculous wages are over. (Pinnila aside!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Gosling Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Pinilla's basic wage is less than Berra's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Pinilla's basic wage is less than Berra's. Shhhhhhhhhhhhh! Wage thief! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Winstone Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Pinilla's basic wage is less than Berra's. Well lets hurry up and get Berra punted then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Pinilla's basic wage is less than Berra's. And so it should be. Infact I really don't understand why he is still getting a wage at all. He should have been emptied long before now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshallschunkychicken Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Interesting that Banderson seems to think that the Velicka sale will result in money coming to Hearts. Kinda makes me think he's probably made a breast of the whole article if he can't get that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 I though Barry Anderson and any article in the Evening news was not to be believed? Only when it suits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyMcI Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Pinilla's basic wage is less than Berra's. Did Pinilla sign a new contract? There were threads stating his agent claiming we now owned Pinnila outright and was signed on a new 3 year deal, but i dont think this had been confirmed on the Official Hearts website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allandssmith Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 We've definitely signed Pinilla on a three year deal. I'm sure that's been on both the HMFC website and the BBC website. Let's not forget the debt figures that have been quoted do not include either the Bednar sale or more importantly the Gordon sale which has now increased in value since Sunderland managed to stay up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 I thought Vlad told us 2 years ago not to be worried about the debt? I still dont understand why people who are broadly supportive of Vlad defend the player sales - eg the fact that he sells our only competent striker 2/3s through a season - due it being "good business" and essential as part of this cost cutting exercise. An exercise that seems to have been the figment of one persons imagination repeated ad nauseum until it gets a following If you are broadly supportive of Vlad, then surely you should follow his lead and be relaxed about the debt? If you are relaxed about the debt why defend every sale and potential sale of any player worth anything at the club. Anyway what a non-article from the Scotsman. Not only are they not aware of Kaunas being the beneficiary of the Velicka sale, but they dont actually know the current debt, they dont actually know the current wage levels etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Did Pinilla sign a new contract? There were threads stating his agent claiming we now owned Pinnila outright and was signed on a new 3 year deal, but i dont think this had been confirmed on the Official Hearts website. We only seem to announce the signings of 16 year olds on the official website these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 I had to check a calendar to confirm the date before believing Banderson:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Future's Maroon Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Did Pinilla sign a new contract? There were threads stating his agent claiming we now owned Pinnila outright and was signed on a new 3 year deal, but i dont think this had been confirmed on the Official Hearts website. I brought this up on another forum a few weeks back.....yes we all seen the storie's on the Beeb and EEN sites regarding a new contract being signed (and an apparent ?8m buy out clause - WTF) but it has never been officially announced by Hearts to date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyMcI Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 We've definitely signed Pinilla on a three year deal. I'm sure that's been on both the HMFC website and the BBC website. Let's not forget the debt figures that have been quoted do not include either the Bednar sale or more importantly the Gordon sale which has now increased in value since Sunderland managed to stay up! Had a look but can't see anything on HMFC website. I brought this up on another forum a few weeks back.....yes we all seen the storie's on the Beeb and EEN sites regarding a new contract being signed (and an apparent ?8m buy out clause - WTF) but it has never been officially announced by Hearts to date? Seems strange if this story was true thats its not on the Official site. Recently percieved "good news" stories are being churned out constantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 I thought Vlad told us 2 years ago not to be worried about the debt? I still dont understand why people who are broadly supportive of Vlad defend the player sales - eg the fact that he sells our only competent striker 2/3s through a season - due it being "good business" and essential as part of this cost cutting exercise. An exercise that seems to have been the figment of one persons imagination repeated ad nauseum until it gets a following If you are broadly supportive of Vlad, then surely you should follow his lead and be relaxed about the debt? If you are relaxed about the debt why defend every sale and potential sale of any player worth anything at the club. You have a bit of a point there. Although the same criticism could be levelled at those who are constantly bemoaning the lack of investment in the playing side while at the same time fretting about the level of debt. It is possible of course to have it both ways. I think we'd all like to see the combinations of continuous 2005-06 levels of investment in the team with healthy financial reports. This may be more feasible with a bigger Tynecastle but in the meantime the shortfall has to be made up one way or another and the only way for that to happen would be for some external source of funding (i.e. Vlad personally) to liquidise some assets, write the cheques and finance the deficit either directly through subsidy or indirectly by underwriting the intragroup debt. If Vlad were willing to chuck million after million down a big hole every year with little hope of getting it back then clearly "cost cutting exercises" would not be essential. This would be an ideal situation for us, as supporters, Despite our limited numbers we would still get to watch the kind of team that usually only bigger clubs can afford However it's evidently not the reality. While his involvement with hearts hasn't given the impression of somebody who's afraid of losses his appetite for losing money isn't limitless. Evidently Vlad's appetite for losing money on football isn't as voracious as we might hope. And this is where we can resolve the apparent contradiction If you are broadly supportive of Vlad, then surely you should follow his lead and be relaxed about the debt? Vlad did indeed say something along the lines that "The supporters shouldn't worry about the debt as we owe it to ourselves". However while it's one thing to say that the supporters shouldn't worry, it's another to say that the owners shouldn't worry. In essence what he was saying would appear to be the losses are their problem rather than ours. Vlad (or UBIG) clearly isn't completely relaxed about the levels of debt, or rather the deficit spending that has been escalating it. There's been a lot of investment but while it probably doesn't matter if they get it all back but it's clear that they want some of it back. I'd rather that Vlad didn't care at all about Hearts losing money. In fact I'd rather he sold all his companies, amassed a large pot of hard cash, transferred it all to Hearts and then transferred the clubs ownership to a Barcelona style member-owned club type thing before disappearing off to join a Monastry in Latvia. But I can deal with the idea that that's not going to happen any time soon. When he first arrived most Hearts supporters seemed, to a greater or lesser extent, to confuse Vlad with a baltic Santa Claus who would bankroll a large sustained deficit for years and it often seems to be the ones who most bought into that idea that are the bitterest now. It's hard to celebrate changes geared at allowing Hearts to live within it's means means, or less far beyond them (Celebrating balance sheets is best left to the Hobos) but it should hardly be the trigger for the wailing and gnashing of teeth that so often happens. Last season's failure to get remotely decent results out of the investments in the playing side is another issue entirely. But still, mustn't grumble, there's always next season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neave Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Pinilla's basic wage is less than Berra's. Chris, you know better than to post things that don't fit pessimists' agendas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.