Accounts and AGM 2017 ( Merged )

[Spencer]

Just now, Jamboelite said:

The loan terms were 2.5% interest it was mentioned previously.

 

While i get the comments regarding extra spend its clearly not a vanity project, what i would say is that the club clearly want this done once and right so it can generate future income.

 

To do that how much did we spend ?and how much did we have to spend ? are two different questions.

 

What I want to know is with regard to the £5.9m expected spend on top of the £6.9m already spent (£700k buying land included). That equates to £12.8m is that the expected final total ? If it is then that is well done in my book with minimal overspend.

 

i suspect it isnt though and is the original estimate.

 

 

I had understood there to be a 6% coupon on her original loan together with a fairly chunky arrangement fee payable 

[Dagger Is Back]

5 minutes ago, Spencer said:

It was a poor call from AB and one I'm very surprised she made in all honesty. 

 

She's had to make mention of it within the A/A's and quite honestly the - independently approved / at arms length narrative is just seeking to placate people.

 

It's brought unnecessary scrutiny given project is over budget and over timescale 

 

I am surprised that JBC 'were allowed' to tender in the first place. 'Employing' family in situations like this carries lots of risks and challenges and as you say, unnecessary scrutiny.

 

AB would had to declare the connection at the outset as part of the tender process you'd imagine but I'm surprised it got to that stage.

 

 

[Spencer]

3 minutes ago, Dagger Is Back said:

 

I am surprised that JBC 'were allowed' to tender in the first place. 'Employing' family in situations like this carries lots of risks and challenges and as you say, unnecessary scrutiny.

 

AB would had to declare the connection at the outset as part of the tender process you'd imagine but I'm surprised it got to that stage.

 

 

Who was going to stop her appointing that particular contractor though? She calls the shots after all 

[soonbe110]

8 hours ago, Spencer said:

I agree. I got criticised for suggesting it was a vanity project. Interesting how necessary the overspend has been. It's certainly constrained what we can achieve on the park. 

 

It can't be overlooked that today was almost 3,500 under capacity for the first game at the new stadium. That is not a good turn out in such circumstances. I suspect things will get worse because there are teams coming to Tynecastle who will be very difficult opponents. County will be very organised next week. They certainly were against Celtic. I'm absolutely certain Motherwell will come and take 3 points in a few weeks time. Nailed on bottom 6 performance this year. It won't get better under Levein 

 

Will be interesting what AB has to reveal at the AGM regarding the £1.7m loan and the terms thereof 

 

She will get nervous at sub 17,000 home attendances though. And so she should 

How much do you win at the bookies every week? Your ability to see into the future and tell us what will happen must be worth a lot of money to you. How much should I risk backing these latest predictions?

On the other hand why not just stop all the sh*t- stirring that you do on here! 

[soonbe110]

7 hours ago, Kiwidoug said:

I'm sorry but I think we may actually be pretty much in agreement.  I'm sure you didn't dispute the statements of Ann Budge when she took over that the entire club was rotten from top to bottom.  That clearly meant that infrastructure spending was inevitable.

 

The money spent on the stand can't be spent on the squad.  Despite that I agree that our on field performance has to improve dramatically over the next 2 years.  Even with the infrastructure commitments we still have more money than the vast majority of clubs could ever dream of.

 

The point I tried to make was that in a couple of years we will be spending more on players and less on building than we are now.

Good post. Unfortunately some on here cant see any positives. 

[davemclaren]

7 minutes ago, Spencer said:

Who was going to stop her appointing that particular contractor though? She calls the shots after all 

That’s if you believe it was her appointment rather than that of the PM as stated in the accounts.  Either way, it was always going to attract comment and speculation. 

[Spencer]

3 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

That’s if you believe it was her appointment rather than that of the PM as stated in the accounts.  Either way, it was always going to attract comment and speculation. 

Which made it a poor call imo 

 

 

[Dagger Is Back]

14 minutes ago, Spencer said:

Who was going to stop her appointing that particular contractor though? She calls the shots after all 

 

It wasn't her appointment though. It was a decision taken by an independent party. I would have expected AB to confirm the connection as part of the process and thereafter it's down to the independent party to make the decision.  In the same position, I wouldn't have let it get that far but AB was obviously comfortable with JBC tendering and being part of the process.

 

By the way, I'm not saying that anything has been done wrongly but you either have to be 100% certain of your connections ability to deliver within timescales and budget, or you leave yourself open to further scrutiny. I think working with family also carries a fair degree of stress and pressure which is different from using another party

[Spencer]

2 minutes ago, Dagger Is Back said:

 

It wasn't her appointment though. It was a decision taken by an independent party. I would have expected AB to confirm the connection as part of the process and thereafter it's down to the independent party to make the decision.  In the same position, I wouldn't have let it get that far but AB was obviously comfortable with JBC tendering and being part of the process.

 

By the way, I'm not saying that anything has been done wrongly but you either have to be 100% certain of your connections ability to deliver within timescales and budget, or you leave yourself open to further scrutiny. I think working with family also carries a fair degree of stress and pressure which is different from using another party

Agreed on your closing comments. I'm not suggesting for one moment there has been any impropriety 

 

I'm not sure what comparable experience JB Contracts (Scotland) Limited were able call upon during the tendering process.  Quite possible the value of works undertaken in this project will have exceeded annual turnover of the company in the average year. 

 

That would be a touch unusual 

[Spencer]

26 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

How much do you win at the bookies every week? Your ability to see into the future and tell us what will happen must be worth a lot of money to you. How much should I risk backing these latest predictions?

On the other hand why not just stop all the sh*t- stirring that you do on here! 

You are not worth engaging with 

 

You offer absolutely nothing on here. You are an apologist and entirely accepting of failure 

[Gorgie_Rules]

Excuse my ignorance here, but how long do we think it will be until the stand is fully paid off/bidco has been paid? By that point we should have a very decent playing budget, new stand with the income it will bring, and £1.4million-ish from the FoH contributing each year.

 

If we can get things right on the park we could be very strong financially, I am guessing at that point Budge’s work will be done.

[BelgeJambo]

57 minutes ago, Spencer said:

Who was going to stop her appointing that particular contractor though? She calls the shots after all 

There is a board of Directors therefore if there is not a competitive bidding policy for the club to adhere too then I don't think there is anything to get excited about here

stand is open 

move on

[FarmerTweedy]

46 minutes ago, Spencer said:

Which made it a poor call imo 

 

 

 

It's all very easy to criticise that decision, but I'm going to hazard a guess that you have very little idea about the actual facts behind the decision? It's entirely possible that they were the only company willing to do the job for the sort of price the club could afford, or the only ones willing to even attempt to get it done in the sort of timescale the club was looking for. I'm not saying the decision was necessarily the right one either, just that I don't think any of us are in a position to judge it.

[Spencer]

7 minutes ago, BelgeJambo said:

There is a board of Directors therefore if there is not a competitive bidding policy for the club to adhere too then I don't think there is anything to get excited about here

stand is open 

move on

I'm not getting excited. I'm merely curious as to how this played out 

 

I'm also curious as to the terms of the £1.7M loan facility obtained last months and the terms thereof.  Presumably the loan has been made available by AB - but what are the terms. Is it a longer term facility and will it result in an extended moratorium on her original loan, thus delaying the transition to fan ownership 

 

We have someone at the helm who looks entirely comfortable with the profile she has attracted in her current role. Delayed transition to full fan ownership isn't likely to be hardship for her i suspect. Indeed she might be entirely comfortable 

[FarmerTweedy]

3 minutes ago, Spencer said:

I'm not getting excited. I'm merely curious as to how this played out 

 

I'm also curious as to the terms of the £1.7M loan facility obtained last months and the terms thereof.  Presumably the loan has been made available by AB - but what are the terms. Is it a longer term facility and will it result in an extended moratorium on her original loan, thus delaying the transition to fan ownership 

 

We have someone at the helm who looks entirely comfortable with the profile she has attracted in her current role. Delayed transition to full fan ownership isn't likely to be hardship for her i suspect. Indeed she might be entirely comfortable 

Any delay to the transition to fan ownership would have had to be agreed with the FoH in much the same way as the stand funding agreement. 

 

It seems to me from your last paragraph that you're now looking for reasons to believe that she's now taking advantage of the club or fans.

[Spencer]

Just now, FarmerTweedy said:

Any delay to the transition to fan ownership would have had to be agreed with the FoH in much the same way as the stand funding agreement. 

 

It seems to me from your last paragraph that you're now looking for reasons to believe that she's now taking advantage of the club or fans.

I'm saying that she appears comfortable with the profile her role has given her and that any delayed transition to fan ownership is unlikely to faze her 

 

There are questions that we need answers to though.  Hopefully the AGM will provide those 

 

I am particularly interesed in the terms of the new loan facility 

[BelgeJambo]

7 minutes ago, Spencer said:

I'm not getting excited. I'm merely curious as to how this played out 

 

I'm also curious as to the terms of the £1.7M loan facility obtained last months and the terms thereof.  Presumably the loan has been made available by AB - but what are the terms. Is it a longer term facility and will it result in an extended moratorium on her original loan, thus delaying the transition to fan ownership 

 

We have someone at the helm who looks entirely comfortable with the profile she has attracted in her current role. Delayed transition to full fan ownership isn't likely to be hardship for her i suspect. Indeed she might be entirely comfortable 

Bit harsh lol

 

Will you be at the AGM?

[EIEIO]

The interest on the loan if it is needed is 2.5%. The duration of the loan is not known. Source Ann at the HMSA monthly dinner in September.

[ford donald]

13 minutes ago, FarmerTweedy said:

 

It's all very easy to criticise that decision, but I'm going to hazard a guess that you have very little idea about the actual facts behind the decision? It's entirely possible that they were the only company willing to do the job for the sort of price the club could afford, or the only ones willing to even attempt to get it done in the sort of timescale the club was looking for. I'm not saying the decision was necessarily the right one either, just that I don't think any of us are in a position to judge it.

 I would imagine AB did get a very good deal from her brother's company,plus it was someone she could trust,so all's well.Even though he is a Hib's supporter!

[Spencer]

24 minutes ago, BelgeJambo said:

Bit harsh lol

 

Will you be at the AGM?

I will try to get there. Timing doesn't really do it for those trying to keep the wheels of industry moving!

[Jamboelite]

16 minutes ago, EIEIO said:

The interest on the loan if it is needed is 2.5%. The duration of the loan is not known. Source Ann at the HMSA monthly dinner in September.

Yup said this earlier.

[Dallas Green]

Things looking decent it would seem on the money front.

 

As folk have said the contractor situation seems a bit bizzare but I'm sure it was all above board

 

 

[HoGwash]

1 hour ago, Dagger Is Back said:

 

It wasn't her appointment though. It was a decision taken by an independent party. I would have expected AB to confirm the connection as part of the process and thereafter it's down to the independent party to make the decision.  In the same position, I wouldn't have let it get that far but AB was obviously comfortable with JBC tendering and being part of the process.

 

By the way, I'm not saying that anything has been done wrongly but you either have to be 100% certain of your connections ability to deliver within timescales and budget, or you leave yourself open to further scrutiny. I think working with family also carries a fair degree of stress and pressure which is different from using another party

it is perfectly possible that Hearts obtained a better price than would normally be the case due to the family connection. There would also presumably be a built in element of trust between the 2 companies.

[colinmaroon]

51 minutes ago, Spencer said:

I'm not getting excited. I'm merely curious as to how this played out 

 

I'm also curious as to the terms of the £1.7M loan facility obtained last months and the terms thereof.  Presumably the loan has been made available by AB - but what are the terms. Is it a longer term facility and will it result in an extended moratorium on her original loan, thus delaying the transition to fan ownership 

 

We have someone at the helm who looks entirely comfortable with the profile she has attracted in her current role. Delayed transition to full fan ownership isn't likely to be hardship for her i suspect. Indeed she might be entirely comfortable 

 

 

Honestly, you are the most pernickety, negative nitpicking person on this board and that is saying something.  It is so tiresome!

 

The £1.7 million loan "FACILITY" is with the bank, IF NEEDED!!!

 

[graygo]

Might deserve it's own thread but I see the wee team have announced a loss of £300k 

[Clerry Jambo]

7 minutes ago, graygo said:

Might deserve it's own thread but I see the wee team have announced a loss of £300k 

When they get their 10 million for McGinny, this will pale into significance!

[Spencer]

14 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

 

Honestly, you are the most pernickety, negative nitpicking person on this board and that is saying something.  It is so tiresome!

 

The £1.7 million loan "FACILITY" is with the bank, IF NEEDED!!!

 

Thanks for your kind remarks. 

 

There is nothing within the A/A's to suggest the loan was granted by a Bank. If that were the case it would most likely see the senior debt provider granted SS and B&FC over Tynecastle.  I don't see intimation of such within the A/A's 

 

I appreciate people raising questions isn't always popular 

[Trapper John McIntyre]

17 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

 

Honestly, you are the most pernickety, negative nitpicking person on this board and that is saying something.  It is so tiresome!

 

The £1.7 million loan "FACILITY" is with the bank, IF NEEDED!!!

 

There is nothing negative about raising valid points about our finances.

 

Particularly when there has been a huge overspend on a stand built by our owners brother's company.

 

Were you one of the 'we owe the debt to ourselves'  mob during the Vlad era?

[JamboAl]

1 hour ago, Spencer said:

I'm not getting excited. I'm merely curious as to how this played out 

 

I'm also curious as to the terms of the £1.7M loan facility obtained last months and the terms thereof.  Presumably the loan has been made available by AB - but what are the terms. Is it a longer term facility and will it result in an extended moratorium on her original loan, thus delaying the transition to fan ownership 

 

We have someone at the helm who looks entirely comfortable with the profile she has attracted in her current role. Delayed transition to full fan ownership isn't likely to be hardship for her i suspect. Indeed she might be entirely comfortable 

But what has this got to do with you apart from curiosity (which killed the cat)?

The transaction is described as "at arms length" so unless you have hard evidence to the contrary you should accept that nothing untoward happened.  You are clearly assuming that AB was putting money in a relative's pocket but the reverse could be true.  It could be that she was given a more favourable price than otherwise might have been available.

Then you come out with "Presumably the loan has been made available by AB but what are the terms".  A presumption that no doubt you will build on as though it were fact.

Give it a rest!

You also say the AGM might be a problem because some people have to keep the wheels of industry moving.  Going by the amount of time you spend on here the wheels certainly don't cover as much ground as they could.

[Trapper John McIntyre]

1 minute ago, JamboAl said:

But what has this got to do with you apart from curiosity (which killed the cat)?

The transaction is described as "at arms length" so unless you have hard evidence to the contrary you should accept that nothing untoward happened.  You are clearly assuming that AB was putting money in a relative's pocket but the reverse could be true.  It could be that she was given a more favourable price than otherwise might have been available.

Then you come out with "Presumably the loan has been made available by AB but what are the terms".  A presumption that no doubt you will build on as though it were fact.

Give it a rest!

You also say the AGM might be a problem because some people have to keep the wheels of industry moving.  Going by the amount of time you spend on here the wheels certainly don't cover as much ground as they could.

 

Good one.

 

Compared to your usual standard that is.

[Sooperstar]

23 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

 

Honestly, you are the most pernickety, negative nitpicking person on this board and that is saying something.  It is so tiresome!

 

The £1.7 million loan "FACILITY" is with the bank, IF NEEDED!!!

 

You really think that banks, who have lost a fortune on Scottish Football debts and who have desperately exited the market, as evidenced with deals agreed for Dundee Utd, Hibs etc, are going to go back into that market? To a club who have previously gone into administration and left tens of millions of pounds in unpaid creditors? You really think that?!

[colinmaroon]

3 minutes ago, Spencer said:

Thanks for your kind remarks. 

 

There is nothing within the A/A's to suggest the loan was granted by a Bank. If that were the case it would most likely see the senior debt provider granted SS and B&FC over Tynecastle.  I don't see intimation of such within the A/A's 

 

I appreciate people raising questions isn't always popular 

 

There are "questions" and there are the constant negative drivel that you pathetically call "raising questions."

 

Your attempt to make something of the normal governance of a building project, without yourself having a bloody clue as to how it operates, is just typical of you smearing shit all over good news.

 

You can protest you are a Hearts supporter as much as you like.  There is a very, very strong stench of something else altogether!

[Spencer]

1 minute ago, Sooperstar said:

You really think that banks, who have lost a fortune on Scottish Football debts and who have desperately exited the market, as evidenced with deals agreed for Dundee Utd, Hibs etc, are going to go back into that market? To a club who have previously gone into administration and left tens of millions of pounds in unpaid creditors? You really think that?!

Some people do think that! 

[colinmaroon]

1 minute ago, Sooperstar said:

You really think that banks, who have lost a fortune on Scottish Football debts and who have desperately exited the market, as evidenced with deals agreed for Dundee Utd, Hibs etc, are going to go back into that market? To a club who have previously gone into administration and left tens of millions of pounds in unpaid creditors? You really think that?!

 

 

That is what has been reported!

 

It is simply similar to an overdraft facility.

 

http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2017/11/19/gift-2-5-million-helps-hearts-post-2-3-million-profit-despite-construction-new-main-stand-turnover-rises-11-3-million-tynecastle-ann-budge-callum-paterson/

 

[davemclaren]

1 hour ago, Spencer said:

I'm saying that she appears comfortable with the profile her role has given her and that any delayed transition to fan ownership is unlikely to faze her 

 

There are questions that we need answers to though.  Hopefully the AGM will provide those 

 

I am particularly interesed in the terms of the new loan facility 

I don’t always agreed with you but the loan terms and the use of a relative are pertinent points worthy of further clarification at the agm. 

[Jam Tarts 1874]

25 minutes ago, graygo said:

Might deserve it's own thread but I see the wee team have announced a loss of £300k 

 

So they've done their unofficial CVA, ripped off the tax-payers, amassed huge amounts for their cup exploits and yet are still living beyond their means.  Their recent wins against us are clearly down to financial doping. 

 

Is there no end to their blatant cheatery?

[Spencer]

1 minute ago, colinmaroon said:

 

 

That is what has been reported!

 

It is simply similar to an overdraft facility.

 

http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2017/11/19/gift-2-5-million-helps-hearts-post-2-3-million-profit-despite-construction-new-main-stand-turnover-rises-11-3-million-tynecastle-ann-budge-callum-paterson/

 

That's a rather lazy article if I may say 

 

There is nothing to suggest any Bank has granted the facility in question 

 

Of course it might be the case, but they would require a SS and B&FC and neither is disclosed in A/A's 

 

Given the bath LBG took at hands of their last remaining exposure to Scottish Football I'd be amazed if any Bank is looking to engage in any debt provision to a Scottish Football Club.  Not least one which suffered an insolvency event 3 years ago thus shaking off c. £30M of obligations 

[Trapper John McIntyre]

1 minute ago, Spencer said:

That's a rather lazy article if I may say 

 

There is nothing to suggest any Bank has granted the facility in question 

 

Of course it might be the case, but they would require a SS and B&FC and neither is disclosed in A/A's 

 

Given the bath LBG took at hands of their last remaining exposure to Scottish Football I'd be amazed if any Bank is looking to engage in any debt provision to a Scottish Football Club.  Not least one which suffered an insolvency event 3 years ago thus shaking off c. £30M of obligations 

Maybe we the owe the £1.7m  'bank' loan to ourselves?

[JamboAl]

3 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

Maybe we the owe the £1.7m  'bank' loan to ourselves?

Can I suggest this post is in keeping with your usual standard.  It is a loan facility.

[Spencer]

13 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I don’t always agreed with you but the loan terms and the use of a relative are pertinent points worthy of further clarification at the agm. 

I think they are.

 

Again I would repeat, despite attempts by certain posters who seek to misrepresent my comments, I'm not for one moment implying there has been any impropriety.  I'm sure there hasn't been 

 

The project overspend and over timescale has brought scrutiny upon a related party arrangement 

 

Some people on here are absolutely desperate to be offended 

[Sooperstar]

13 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

 

That is what has been reported!

 

It is simply similar to an overdraft facility.

 

http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2017/11/19/gift-2-5-million-helps-hearts-post-2-3-million-profit-despite-construction-new-main-stand-turnover-rises-11-3-million-tynecastle-ann-budge-callum-paterson/

 

That article has taken Hearts previous communication that they have finance available and assumed it is from a bank. That's all it is though, an assumption. Almost certainly an incorrect one at that.

[Trapper John McIntyre]

12 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Can I suggest this post is in keeping with your usual standard.  It is a loan facility.

 

Yes of course , love.

 

Wouldn't want to fall foul of you, you being the darling of the Mods.

[Footballfirst]

The terms of the original £2.4m loan was at 6%, with interest calculated daily and accumulated interest paid off quarterly.

 

There was an arrangement fee of £110,000 which was detailed in the agreement, but there also appears to have been an ongoing arrangement fee (or facility fee), amounting to £22,000 per annum, that has continued while the loan has been in place, but I can't find any reference to it in the various loan or funding agreements.  I don't know whether it is paid monthly, quarterly or annually, but it has cost £66,000 up to 30 June 2017.

 

I'm unsure how the waiving of interest for the two years of new stand funding period actually operates, i.e. whether the club doesn't pay anything, so the cash remains as working capital, whether the club is required to ring fence the sum for the new stand development, or whether Bidco receives the interest but immediately returns it into the new stand development fund.   The end result is much the same, but I'm sure that there will be accounting reasons for doing it in a particular way.

 

All we know about the new loan facility is that it was agreed in October for up to £1.75m.  Ann stated that at the HMSA dinner that it was for up to £2m at 2.5%.  We don't know who is providing the funds, as yet, but if the loan is drawn down, and secured, then the security will have to be lodged with Companies House and should name the holder.

[sairyinthat]

3 hours ago, Spencer said:

Who was going to stop her appointing that particular contractor though? She calls the shots after all 

We are a club who were in intensive care when Dr.Budge and her team arrived.She and they nursed us into the High Dependency Unit and we have been moved yet again to the General ward in recovery yet it appears you and some others want us released early and some of her team dismissed. To appoint who,some Quack? Have a word with yourself.

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, sairyinthat said:

We are a club who were in intensive care when Dr.Budge and her team arrived.She and they nursed us into the High Dependency Unit and we have been moved yet again to the General ward in recovery yet it appears you and some others want us released early and some of her team dismissed. To appoint who,some Quack? Have a word with yourself.

 

We left hospital ages ago and are now back in the real world of buying and selling people and services.  We are where we are now, not where we were 3 or 4  years ago.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

48 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The terms of the original £2.4m loan was at 6%, with interest calculated daily and accumulated interest paid off quarterly.

 

There was an arrangement fee of £110,000 which was detailed in the agreement, but there also appears to have been an ongoing arrangement fee (or facility fee), amounting to £22,000 per annum, that has continued while the loan has been in place, but I can't find any reference to it in the various loan or funding agreements.  I don't know whether it is paid monthly, quarterly or annually, but it has cost £66,000 up to 30 June 2017.

 

I'm unsure how the waiving of interest for the two years of new stand funding period actually operates, i.e. whether the club doesn't pay anything, so the cash remains as working capital, whether the club is required to ring fence the sum for the new stand development, or whether Bidco receives the interest but immediately returns it into the new stand development fund.   The end result is much the same, but I'm sure that there will be accounting reasons for doing it in a particular way.

 

All we know about the new loan facility is that it was agreed in October for up to £1.75m.  Ann stated that at the HMSA dinner that it was for up to £2m at 2.5%.  We don't know who is providing the funds, as yet, but if the loan is drawn down, and secured, then the security will have to be lodged with Companies House and should name the holder.

 

I know I should look myself but is there any chance that the £22,000 annual payment is just the £110K arrangement fee being paid in 5 steps??

 

Thanks for your analysis btw

[Footballfirst]

11 minutes ago, Glamorgan Jambo said:

 

I know I should look myself but is there any chance that the £22,000 annual payment is just the £110K arrangement fee being paid in 5 steps??

 

Thanks for your analysis btw

 

No, the £110,000 was paid by 31 December 2015.

 

From the HMFC - Bidco Loan agreement

11.2 Arrangement Fee

The Borrower Shall pay to the Lender an arrangement fee of £110,000, which fee shall be deferred until and payable on 31 December 2015.

 

From the HMFC 2016 Accounts

At 30 June 2016 the company owed Bidco (1874) Limited £2.4m (2015 - £2.4m), plus an accrued arrangement fee of £nil (2015 - £110,000) as it was paid in the year.

 

And the Bidco 2016 accounts

As at 30 June 2016, Heart of Midlothian plc owed the company £2.4m (2015 - £2.4m) plus an accrued arrangement fee of £nil (2015 - £110,000) which was paid during the year.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

4 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

No, the £110,000 was paid by 31 December 2015.

 

From the HMFC - Bidco Loan agreement

11.2 Arrangement Fee

 

The Borrower Shall pay to the Lender an arrangement fee of £110,000, which fee shall be deferred until and payable on 31 December 2015.

 

 

From the 2016 Accounts

At 30 June 2016 the company owed Bidco (1874) Limited £2.4m (2015 - £2.4m), plus an accrued arrangement fee of £nil (2015 - £110,000) as it was paid in the year.

Thanks FF

[ramrod]

2 hours ago, colinmaroon said:

 

 

Honestly, you are the most pernickety, negative nitpicking person on this board and that is saying something.  It is so tiresome!

 

The £1.7 million loan "FACILITY" is with the bank, IF NEEDED!!!

 

funnily enough I was just thinking the same thing , lol

[JamboAl]

1 hour ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

 

Yes of course , love.

 

Wouldn't want to fall foul of you, you being the darling of the Mods.

The type of silly response I would expect from someone who clearly doesn't know the difference between a loan and a loan facility.