Oh to be a Hibs fan

[rudi must stay]

8 minutes ago, farin said:

 

Definitely suspect. 

 

Deal was done within a few weeks Farmer says (Hibs TV interview). That's a quick deal considering the money involved..

 

Yes I agree with the other poster it does sound like Farmer wanted out and has sold to the first bidder, not always the best strategy

[Guest ToqueJambo]

1 hour ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

And without HSL funding the Ponzi scheme will actually mean they are worse off.

 

hibsing it again hopefully 

 

An epic Hibs it could be on the cards.

 

They not only sold out the fans who wanted fan ownership and who have contributed to HSL (seemingly without any consultation - Farmer could have said they had an interested buyer in case HSL could do a big push for fam ownership instead) but have moved from a stable position to a potentially very unstable

one, no matter what short term bounce or one off investment into the squad they might get this season.

[Beast Boy]

6 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I'm sure that the Floating Charge will be dressed up as making provision for any future loan facility provided by Ron Gordon, but isn't actually required at the moment (unless his "seven figure" cash investment is in the form of a loan).

 

Ann Budge has an equivalent FC over Hearts assets to cover her lending.

 

I haven't seen anything to suggest that Bydand has taken over the company HFC Holdings (Hibs parent company), so I would take it in good faith that Bydand has just acquired the Hibs shares held by HFC.   

 

I'd expect a few more documents to appear at Companies House over the next few days or weeks, which should confirm the change of ownership.

 

14 minutes ago, Mikey2690 said:

 

His website is pretty interesting but in this case he is wrong. The agreement is in the document provisionally should Hibs borrow from Bydand Sports in the future. That does not say they have already lent Hibs money.  The new owner has paid off the debt Hibs owed Farmer. There (at present) is no debt. If in say a year Hibs borrow £1m from Bydand Sports to build their indoor pitch, then this agreement in these documents simply gives Bydand security over the loan. IT does not mean Hibs owe them any money at present as they do not. 

 

[Kiwidoug]

Back to thread title.

 

O 2

 

O 2 B

 

O 2 B a

 

Junkee

 

Enjoying the cricket here in the middle of the night.  If all our players play like Bairstow, we'll win everything.

[Martin_T]

5 minutes ago, Mikey2690 said:

 

"A floating charge is a particular type of security, available only to companies. It is an equitable charge on (usually) all the company's assets both present and future, on terms that the company may deal with the assets in the ordinary course of business. Very occasionally the charge is over just a class of the company's assets, such as its stock.

The floating charge is useful for many companies, allowing them to borrow even though they have no specific assets, such as freehold premises, which they can use as security. A floating charge allows all the company's assets, such as stock in trade, plant and machinery, vehicles, etc., to be charged."

 

So in simple terms, its there if Hibs borrow from them in the future. That does not mean they have already borrowed or are in debt to the new guy.

 

At best though, it does show that this is not an altruistic sugar daddy type investor and that any 'investment' in the club will be leveraged against it's assets.

 

In short, it's another Dundee/ Dundee United type speculative investment by an American company. 

[Beast Boy]

5 minutes ago, Martin_T said:

 

At best though, it does show that this is not an altruistic sugar daddy type investor and that any 'investment' in the club will be leveraged against it's assets.

 

In short, it's another Dundee/ Dundee United type speculative investment by an American company. 

 

I think it looks that way too. I also think he will take a salary, and I suspect a cut of transfer fees. 

 

I am am beginning to wonder if he plans to separate East Mains from the club and own and operate it separately from Hibs FC. Just a wee hunch though.

[Mikey2690]

11 minutes ago, Martin_T said:

 

At best though, it does show that this is not an altruistic sugar daddy type investor and that any 'investment' in the club will be leveraged against it's assets.

 

In short, it's another Dundee/ Dundee United type speculative investment by an American company. 

 

First sentence is correct, but the assets will only be used in the floating charge should Hibs default on any repayments (assuming they even take a loan in the first place) But he may be looking at it as in he invests in things like the indoor pitch etc and in turn increasing the value of his shares therefore when he sells he has a return on his investment. Which from what I can gather so far is the case. It is just that - an investment - it might pay off for him it might not. That's the beauty of investing.

 

I don't know alot about the Dundee/United situation so can't really comment on that.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Mikey2690

[Footballfirst]

14 minutes ago, Mikey2690 said:

 

His website is pretty interesting but in this case he is wrong. The agreement is in the document provisionally should Hibs borrow from Bydand Sports in the future. That does not say they have already lent Hibs money.  The new owner has paid off the debt Hibs owed Farmer. There (at present) is no debt. If in say a year Hibs borrow £1m from Bydand Sports to build their indoor pitch, then this agreement in these documents simply gives Bydand security over the loan. IT does not mean Hibs owe them any money at present as they do not. 

That is correct.  I think we all have to accept, in good faith, that the "debt free" statement is correct, although for practical purposes it only applies for the day on which it was said.

 

However, it is clearly advance preparation for a term loan or other borrowing facility being provided at some point in the future. It could be in a week, month or a year's time, but it's immediate creation suggests to me that there will be some borrowing sooner rather than later, otherwise there would be no need for one before any borrowing actually takes place.

 

The FC will only come into use should there be a default in the repayment schedule of any loan or other borrowing facility.  The club has previously met the repayment terms of their previous mortgage with STF (£500k a year), so there is no indication that the club will fail to meet the repayment terms of any future facility.

 

If I was a Hibs supporter, I would welcome the change of ownership, but I'd be very cautious and ask questions about the plans and purpose of such financial instruments. The worst case scenario would be for the majority shareholder to have leveraged the purchase and transfer the debt incurred onto the club (as the Glazers did at Man Utd). I don't believe that has happened, but is at the extreme end of the possibilities, just as the FC is not actually required and the club will remain debt free for the foreseeable future is at the other extremity. I'd expect that the reality will be somewhere in between the two extremes.  

[Mikey2690]

3 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

That is correct.  I think we all have to accept, in good faith, that the "debt free" statement is correct, although for practical purposes it only applies for the day on which it was said.

 

However, it is clearly advance preparation for a term loan or other borrowing facility being provided at some point in the future. It could be in a week, month or a year's time, but it's immediate creation suggests to me that there will be some borrowing sooner rather than later, otherwise there would be no need for one before any borrowing actually takes place.

 

The FC will only come into use should there be a default in the repayment schedule of any loan or other borrowing facility.  The club has previously met the repayment terms of their previous mortgage with STF (£500k a year), so there is no indication that the club will fail to meet the repayment terms of any future facility.

 

If I was a Hibs supporter, I would welcome the change of ownership, but I'd be very cautious and ask questions about the plans and purpose of such financial instruments. The worst case scenario would be for the majority shareholder to have leveraged the purchase and transfer the debt incurred onto the club (as the Glazers did at Man Utd). I don't believe that has happened, but is at the extreme end of the possibilities, just as the FC is not actually required and the club will remain debt free for the foreseeable future is at the other extremity. I'd expect that the reality will be somewhere in between the two extremes.  

 

Yes I'd agree with that. They want to build an indoor pitch like Oriam, so that is most likely what it is for. Which means the owner gives Hibs the money for the pitch, thus increasing the value of his shares, therefore if and or when he sells in the future, he sees a return on his investment.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Mikey2690

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, WheatfieldWarrior said:

 

There are always reasons, but it isn't the point - the big headline in papers was debt-free 3 years early - this doesn't look at all like that.

 

They Owe It To Themselves TM

[Guest ToqueJambo]

15 minutes ago, Mikey2690 said:

 

First sentence is correct, but the assets will only be used in the floating charge should Hibs default on any repayments (assuming they even take a loan in the first place) But he may be looking at it as in he invests in things like the indoor pitch etc and in turn increasing the value of his shares therefore when he sells he has a return on his investment. Which from what I can gather so far is the case. It is just that - an investment - it might pay off for him it might not. That's the beauty of investing.

 

I don't know alot about the Dundee/United situation so can't really comment on that.

 

The “when he sells” bit is what would worry me. Hibs had a path to fan ownership, albeit it was taking them a very long time.

 

If he does get some ROI he’d be in very small group of one in terms of people who have made money from buying a football club in scotland, especially a non OF club. Many have tried, none have succeeded.

 

Surely the only possible ROI is CL (not happening) or asset stripping? Even making a big profit when selling would be hard. Not sure how he can increase Hibs assets enough to guarantee that.

 

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. Farmer’s been trying to sell for ages. This must have been the only offer on the table.

Edited July 3, 2019 by ToqueJambo

[Beast Boy]

The creation of the floating charge means he ain’t doing this for altruistic reasons, surely?

 

If we accept the above as true, then he will want to make a profit. I can think of four ways that someone could make money from buying Hibs:

 

1) A salary

2) Interest on a loan

3) A cut of any transfer fees

4) Selling after a few years for more than he paid

 

1 on its own would take a while to make back £6m.

2 on its own would take a while to make back £6m.

3 someone would have to have a good reason to get away with that one, like owning the academy as a separate business, and the academy would need money spent on it initially.

4) this would take a long time to make you a profit.

 

Or maybe, it’s a combination of some/all of the above?

 

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Icon of Symmetry

[Mikey2690]

3 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

The “when he sells” bit is what would worry me. Hibs had a path to fan ownership, albeit it was taking them a very long time.

 

If he does get some ROI he’d be in very small group of one in terms of people who have made money from buying a football club in scotland, especially a non OF club. Many have tried, none have succeeded.

 

Surely the only possible ROI is CL (not happening) or asset stripping? Even making a big profit when selling would be hard. Not sure how he can increase Hibs assets enough to guarantee that.

 

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

He would only get a return of any significance if Hibs achieved 'sporting success'. 

 

The truth of the matter is nobody knows, it will go great for Hibs and the new owner or it won't. Just have to wait and see.

[Marvin]

9 hours ago, Sarah O said:

Cannae believe we are sharing a  OUR CITY, with Real Madrid  of Scotland. 

 

 

 

Ftfy 

 

Feck them. I'm sick of reading about them. I hope this lot are even dodgier than Duff and Gray. 

[hughesie27]

3 minutes ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

The creation of the floating charge means he ain’t doing this for altruistic reasons, surely?

 

I we accept the above as true, then he will want to make a profit. I can think of four ways that someone could make money from buying Hibs:

 

1) A salary

2) Interest on a loan

3) A cut of any transfer fees

4) Selling after a few years for more than he paid

 

1 on its own would take a while to make back £6m.

2 on its own would take a while to make back £6m.

3 someone would have to have a good reason to get away with that one, like owning the academy as a separate business, and the academy would need money spent on it initially.

4) this would take a long time to make you a profit.

 

Or maybe, it’s a combination of some/all of the above?

3. That's exactly what Farmer done when he negotiated the 500k PA deal on their debt. It was only a temporary implementation though for the first 2 or 3 transfer windows. I don't think Hibs even sold anyone during that time.

[Mikey2690]

1 minute ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

The creation of the floating charge means he ain’t doing this for altruistic reasons, surely?

 

I we accept the above as true, then he will want to make a profit. I can think of four ways that someone could make money from buying Hibs:

 

1) A salary

2) Interest on a loan

3) A cut of any transfer fees

4) Selling after a few years for more than he paid

 

1 on its own would take a while to make back £6m.

2 on its own would take a while to make back £6m.

3 someone would have to have a good reason to get away with that one, like owning the academy as a separate business, and the academy would need money spent on it initially.

4) this would take a long time to make you a profit.

 

Or maybe, it’s a combination of some/all of the above?

 

You should accept it, because it is true. 

 

if Hibs achieved regular sporting success, he would then see a return on his investment. If he invests in a pitch or whatever that will increase the value of his shares, albeit probably not alot. But Hibs obviously believe investing into the infrastructure will help achieve sporting success and if they do that, that is when he will see a significant return on his investment as when he goes to sell the club, if they have achieved regular sporting success during his tenure, the value of his shares will increase massively. What sporting success means for them I don't know.

 

 

[Beast Boy]

5 minutes ago, Mikey2690 said:

He would only get a return of any significance if Hibs achieved 'sporting success'. 

 

Not if he is on a big salary, takes a cut of profits of some sort (transfer fees?), or collects interest on a loan. Hibs achieving “sporting success” would not matter a jot.

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, Mikey2690 said:

 

You should accept it, because it is true. 

 

if Hibs achieved regular sporting success, he would then see a return on his investment. If he invests in a pitch or whatever that will increase the value of his shares, albeit probably not alot. But Hibs obviously believe investing into the infrastructure will help achieve sporting success and if they do that, that is when he will see a significant return on his investment as when he goes to sell the club, if they have achieved regular sporting success during his tenure, the value of his shares will increase massively. What sporting success means for them I don't know.

 

 

 

You think he would put £6m in up front, to make money years down the line by selling the club for more than he put in? I think the original outlay is too high a figure to make back plus profit, and not enough to significantly improve them in order to accrue that profit.

[Beast Boy]

9 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

3. That's exactly what Farmer done when he negotiated the 500k PA deal on their debt. It was only a temporary implementation though for the first 2 or 3 transfer windows. I don't think Hibs even sold anyone during that time.

 

Indeed. Whilst Farmer was doing that however, a certain Mr Thompson in Dundee was doing something similar, and I suspect that may be a more accurate comparison to what is going to happen here. Just a hunch though. ?

[Mikey2690]

5 minutes ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

 

You think he would put £6m in up front, to make money years down the line by selling the club for more than he put in? I think the original outlay is too high a figure to make back plus profit, and not enough to significantly improve them in order to accrue that profit.

 

Well, thats where the sporting success stuff comes in. If his investments and loans push Hibs to consistent 3rd/2nd finishes in the league and group stage European football then there is no reason he couldn't sell them for his original outlay plus more. That is why they transferred all the assets to the club, so if the above was to happen, the value is higher and therefore thats how he makes his profit. 

 

But again, thats not guaranteed, and you have valid point. Thats the thing with investments though, its a risk. Some work out some don't. It could be a stroke of genius by him and Dempster. Or it might not go that way at all. Only time will tell. The only thing that is sure though, is that factually as of that statement yesterday, the debt was cleared and the do not owe any money to anyone or any company which is what the twitter post said.

 

Anyway, I'm off to see Toy Story 4 so I'll bail out for now. Taking the daughter (But really going for myself). Enjoy your night folks.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Mikey2690

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, Mikey2690 said:

 

Well, thats where the sporting success stuff comes in. If his investments and loans push Hibs to consistent 3rd/2nd finishes in the league and group stage European football then there is no reason he couldn't sell them for his original outlay plus more. That is why they transferred all the assets to the club, so if the above was to happen, the value is higher and therefore thats how he makes his profit. 

 

But again, thats not guaranteed, and you have valid point. Thats the thing with investments though, its a risk. Some work out some don't. It could be a stroke of genius by him and Dempster. Or it might not go that way at all. Only time will tell. The only thing that is sure though, is that factually as of that statement yesterday, the debt was cleared and the do not owe any money to anyone or any company.

 

He’s spent c£4m to buy the club though. He has also put in a “six figure sum”. So that is a bare-minimum of £5m just to be where he is right now, £6m overall if you believe the ITK Hibs folks.

 

That is a huge amount of money in terms of Hibs turnover. In order to make that amount of money back through an increased share price, he would need to make them far more successful than they are currently, and that’s without putting any more money in. The flip side of this however, is that that £5-6m is simultaneously not a massive amount of money in terms of what it would take to make Hibs successful enough to be competing at the top of the league every season, especially when the vast majority was spent just securing the club in his name.

 

It doesn’t make financial sense. In order for this to be what you suggest; a chance of making a profit on his shares, when he sells, he would need to pump in tens of millions more to guarantee the necessary level of success. Even then the profit he would receive for the sale of his shares would have to be insane, to make him money over his outlay. 

[heartandsoul]

Anybody else got a feeling this isn't going to end up well for our Leith friends.

[scott herbertson]

I doubt if a hard headed business man would think that potential 'sporting success' is a worthwhile gamle in the SPL - a routine check of where the success goes, how the money is distributed and the accounts of teams like Hibs Hearts and Aberdeen demonstrate that would be a poor risk

 

To me its much more likely he wants one or more of the following

 

a) to somehow improve the asset value of the infrastructure - eg changing the planning status of east Mains (by building good facilities elsewhere with community benefit to offset turning EM over to housing land, for example - don't kow whether that's possible but there would eb money in it if it is). Reading what he has said it's highly unlikely , but the biggest gain would be separating the ER ground from the company and selling it somehow.

 

b) to gain entry into the UK market (good time, with Brexit going on) for his other interests - media real estate etc (AKA the Romanov Plan)

 

c) based on the assumption he has purchased at a price where he thinks he can get the investment back, it may just be a chance to indulge a hobby and have some fun, perhaps also for his children (is there a Rodney Gordon...?!)

 

d) He has seen the Fergus McCann model and thinks he can leverage more money at a future date from the fans if necessary if the alternative is admin (the blackmail option)

 

Just my random thoughts

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, heartandsoul said:

Anybody else got a feeling this isn't going to end up well for our Leith friends.

 

At the moment, I don’t know really. Although I can’t understand how Gordon can make a profit without either creaming from them, or throwing in massive amounts in order to make a guaranteed, but comparatively small profit, when compared to his outlay? ??‍♂️ 

[Beast Boy]

2 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

I doubt if a hard headed business man would think that potential 'sporting success' is a worthwhile gamle in the SPL - a routine check of where the success goes, how the money is distributed and the accounts of teams like Hibs Hearts and Aberdeen demonstrate that would be a poor risk

 

To me its much more likely he wants one or more of the following

 

a) to somehow improve the asset value of the infrastructure - eg changing the planning status of east Mains (by building good facilities elsewhere with community benefit to offset turning EM over to housing land, for example - don't kow whether that's possible but there would eb money in it if it is). Reading what he has said it's highly unlikely , but the biggest gain would be separating the ER ground from the company and selling it somehow.

 

b) to gain entry into the UK market (good time, with Brexit going on) for his other interests - media real estate etc (AKA the Romanov Plan)

 

c) based on the assumption he has purchased at a price where he thinks he can get the investment back, it may just be a chance to indulge a hobby and have some fun, perhaps also for his children (is there a Rodney Gordon...?!)

 

d) He has seen the Fergus McCann model and thinks he can leverage more money at a future date from the fans if necessary if the alternative is admin (the blackmail option)

 

Just my random thoughts

 

All FAR more likely than making them successful and selling them on for profit imo.

[gjcc]

11 minutes ago, heartandsoul said:

Anybody else got a feeling this isn't going to end up well for our Leith friends.

 

Pre admin I’d have hoped not. Now, after all their shenanigans trying to finish us, nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing them going down the pan. 

 

Don’t foresee it happening though. 

[scott herbertson]

7 minutes ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

 

All FAR more likely than making them successful and selling them on for profit imo.

 

 

I think these options  are not mutually exclusive with making them successful and selling them on for a profit. I just think a buinessman would not make that their primary plan - it would be the optimum scenario but the second best will also be planned to make money

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

I think these options  are not mutually exclusive with making them successful and selling them on for a profit. I just think a buinessman would not make that their primary plan - it would be the optimum scenario but the second best will also be planned to make money

 

There is no way someone would make that their plan to make a profit. Not a chance in hell.

 

 

[Beast Boy]

4 minutes ago, gjcc said:

 

Pre admin I’d have hoped not. Now, after all their shenanigans trying to finish us, nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing them going down the pan. 

 

Don’t foresee it happening though. 

 

It would give me great pleasure to witness that too. 

 

I seriously doubt that’s what would happen too though. 

 

I do do however think they could be left worse off during and at the end of all of this though... which would do. ?

[Guest ToqueJambo]

53 minutes ago, Mikey2690 said:

He would only get a return of any significance if Hibs achieved 'sporting success'. 

 

The truth of the matter is nobody knows, it will go great for Hibs and the new owner or it won't. Just have to wait and see.

 

That’s what I mean. Sporting success in money terms means CL football. Aberdeen and ourselves have both regularly experienced being the 3rd and sometimes 2nd force. It doesn’t lead to huge money.

[Beast Boy]

6 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

That’s what I mean. Sporting success in money terms means CL football. Aberdeen and ourselves have both regularly experienced being the 3rd and sometimes 2nd force. It doesn’t lead to huge money.

 

Correct. When we last finished second, we got a CL qualifier out of it, and won the cup on top of that. Nowadays, you only get a CL qualifier for winning the Premiership, and that ain’t gonna happen through a “six figure” investment.

 

The money needing to be spent to guarantee a profit, is absolutely enormous!

 

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Icon of Symmetry

[Mikey1874]

He could just be in it for the fun. 

[Beast Boy]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

He could just be in it for the fun. 

 

If so... why Hibs?

[Lfhearts]

Mikey your on kickback for fun.

[Lovecraft]

12 minutes ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

 

If so... why Hibs?

 They were available cheap.

 

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

28 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

I doubt if a hard headed business man would think that potential 'sporting success' is a worthwhile gamle in the SPL - a routine check of where the success goes, how the money is distributed and the accounts of teams like Hibs Hearts and Aberdeen demonstrate that would be a poor risk

 

To me its much more likely he wants one or more of the following

 

a) to somehow improve the asset value of the infrastructure - eg changing the planning status of east Mains (by building good facilities elsewhere with community benefit to offset turning EM over to housing land, for example - don't kow whether that's possible but there would eb money in it if it is). Reading what he has said it's highly unlikely , but the biggest gain would be separating the ER ground from the company and selling it somehow.

 

b) to gain entry into the UK market (good time, with Brexit going on) for his other interests - media real estate etc (AKA the Romanov Plan)

 

c) based on the assumption he has purchased at a price where he thinks he can get the investment back, it may just be a chance to indulge a hobby and have some fun, perhaps also for his children (is there a Rodney Gordon...?!)

 

d) He has seen the Fergus McCann model and thinks he can leverage more money at a future date from the fans if necessary if the alternative is admin (the blackmail option)

 

Just my random thoughts

 

The only model we know always fails in Scotland is when the buyer is in it to make money.

 

The McCann model is unique to celtic although we kind of followed it with budge’s mccann style 5 year plan to stabilise the club then push on from there. We added fan ownership to that.

 

Aside from that local owners with a connection to the club can be hit or miss but are usually the best way to go long term.

[Beast Boy]

Just now, Lovecraft said:

 They were available cheap.

 

 

 

£6m to get overall control, and then further money needed to make them competitive? Doesn’t seem that cheap to me...

[Guest ToqueJambo]

16 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

He could just be in it for the fun. 

 

The Romanov approach!

 

[Lovecraft]

3 minutes ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

 

£6m to get overall control, and then further money needed to make them competitive? Doesn’t seem that cheap to me...

 Does he get all the assets including land, training centre and stadium too?

 

[Beast Boy]

Just now, Lovecraft said:

 Does he get all the assets including land, training centre and stadium too?

 

 

Think so. If so, then he needs to make the money back and then turn a profit. What are his options?

[Lovecraft]

3 minutes ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

 

Think so. If so, then he needs to make the money back and then turn a profit. What are his options?

 

Turnover of £9.6m compared to £7.7m in the previous year - not quite a record, but the highest annual turnover figure since 2006-07.  

Staff costs were £5.3m, up from £4.5m in the previous year.   But the important Wages to Turnover ratio fell to 56% from 59% in the previous year because of the large increase in Turnover.

Net Assets at 30 June 2018 were £19.8m, up from £19.4m one year earlier.   And the Net Asset Value per share at 30 June 2019 was just over 20p per share compared to the share subscription price of 4p per share which has been in place since 2015.  

Cash balances at 30 June 2018 were £4.2m, up from £3.5m one year earlier.   The increase arose mainly because of the increased number of Season Ticket renewals for Season 2018-19 prior to the end of the financial year.   There are now over 13,600 Season Ticket Holders for the 15,000 or so seats available to home supporters at Easter Road Stadium.  An average attendance of 18,500 is the highest for several years.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Lovecraft

[Lovecraft]

They seem fairly stable and reported a profit of 200K last year.

 

The attendances seems fairly stable too.

 

 

 

[Footballfirst]

2 hours ago, Mikey2690 said:

 

His website is pretty interesting but in this case he is wrong. The agreement is in the document provisionally should Hibs borrow from Bydand Sports in the future. That does not say they have already lent Hibs money.  The new owner has paid off the debt Hibs owed Farmer. There (at present) is no debt. If in say a year Hibs borrow £1m from Bydand Sports to build their indoor pitch, then this agreement in these documents simply gives Bydand security over the loan. IT does not mean Hibs owe them any money at present as they do not. 

 

There's a striking resemblance in your post above to one made by "Silent Boatman" on Hibs.net earlier this afternoon. I'm sure that it is entirely coincidental that you used identical words, punctuation and capitalisation, then again it may not.

 

 

Silent Boatman 

@hibs.net private member

Join Date

Oct 2006

Age

51

Posts

17,810

The agreement is in the document provisionally should Hibs borrow from Bydand Sports in the future. That does not say they have already lent Hibs money. The new owner has paid off the debt Hibs owed Farmer. There (at present) is no debt. If in say a year Hibs borrow £1m from Bydand Sports to build their indoor pitch, then this agreement in these documents simply gives Bydand security over the loan. IT does not mean Hibs owe them any money at present as they do not.

[Beast Boy]

11 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

The only model we know always fails in Scotland is when the buyer is in it to make money.

 

The McCann model is unique to celtic although we kind of followed it with budge’s mccann style 5 year plan to stabilise the club then push on from there. We added fan ownership to that.

 

Aside from that local owners with a connection to the club can be hit or miss but are usually the best way to go long term.

 

Not sure about that. As long as you don’t care about success or the club’s future, then there are a few ways of making money... none of them are particularly good for the club or fans though.

 

Just ask Stephen Thompson.

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

5 minutes ago, Barack said:

Champion's League fitba' though.

 

 

Not knocking the fun approach at all. I think Gordon should embrace his fun side. Bring back the venga bus for a start.

[Lovecraft]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

There's a striking resemblance in your post above to one made by "Silent Boatman" on Hibs.net earlier this afternoon. I'm sure that it is entirely coincidental that you used identical words, punctuation and capitalisation, then again it may not.

 

 

Silent Boatman 

@hibs.net private member

Join Date

Oct 2006

Age

51

Posts

17,810

The agreement is in the document provisionally should Hibs borrow from Bydand Sports in the future. That does not say they have already lent Hibs money. The new owner has paid off the debt Hibs owed Farmer. There (at present) is no debt. If in say a year Hibs borrow £1m from Bydand Sports to build their indoor pitch, then this agreement in these documents simply gives Bydand security over the loan. IT does not mean Hibs owe them any money at present as they do not.

  Hahahaha

 

 

Caught.

 

A 51 year old man pretending to be an opposing teams fan.

 

Get a job.

 

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

2 minutes ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

 

Not sure about that. As long as you don’t care about success or the club’s future, then there are a few ways of making money... none of them are particularly good for the club or fans though.

 

Just ask Stephen Thompson.

 

 

Meant fails for the club, and usually the owner. Never, ever succeeds for the club though.

[Sooperstar]

4 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

There's a striking resemblance in your post above to one made by "Silent Boatman" on Hibs.net earlier this afternoon. I'm sure that it is entirely coincidental that you used identical words, punctuation and capitalisation, then again it may not.

 

 

Silent Boatman 

@hibs.net private member

Join Date

Oct 2006

Age

51

Posts

17,810

The agreement is in the document provisionally should Hibs borrow from Bydand Sports in the future. That does not say they have already lent Hibs money. The new owner has paid off the debt Hibs owed Farmer. There (at present) is no debt. If in say a year Hibs borrow £1m from Bydand Sports to build their indoor pitch, then this agreement in these documents simply gives Bydand security over the loan. IT does not mean Hibs owe them any money at present as they do not.

Hahahahaha! Imagine thinking you could get away with posting the same word for word post on the 2 forums. Cheerio Mikey!

[indianajones]

9 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

There's a striking resemblance in your post above to one made by "Silent Boatman" on Hibs.net earlier this afternoon. I'm sure that it is entirely coincidental that you used identical words, punctuation and capitalisation, then again it may not.

 

 

Silent Boatman 

@hibs.net private member

Join Date

Oct 2006

Age

51

Posts

17,810

The agreement is in the document provisionally should Hibs borrow from Bydand Sports in the future. That does not say they have already lent Hibs money. The new owner has paid off the debt Hibs owed Farmer. There (at present) is no debt. If in say a year Hibs borrow £1m from Bydand Sports to build their indoor pitch, then this agreement in these documents simply gives Bydand security over the loan. IT does not mean Hibs owe them any money at present as they do not.

 

Get the hibs rat launched. 

[ShedBoy]

15 minutes ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

 

Think so. If so, then he needs to make the money back and then turn a profit. What are his options?

Have you seen how many flats you can get on a football pitch?