Rawrrrrrrr Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Post your thoughts on areas of the companies act, or any other relevent legal corporate legislation you feel vlad may have breached or infringed in some way. Or any employee of hearts. Likewise any Fifa, SFA, UEFA, European directive. Im just intrigued to see how many people can come up with, I may get my old company law notes out in a few days and add some if I can be bothered:rolleyes: I reckon we won't be short of suggestions, and if we can do this can you imagine what a real lawyer could do? Maybe a proper protest idea that would make vlad sweat a bit as opposed to some ned with a handwritten banner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jambomickey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Post your thoughts on areas of the companies act, or any other relevent legal corporate legislation you feel vlad may have breached or infringed in some way. Or any employee of hearts. Likewise any Fifa, SFA, UEFA, European directive. Im just intrigued to see how many people can come up with, I may get my old company law notes out in a few days and add some if I can be bothered:rolleyes: I reckon we won't be short of suggestions, and if we can do this can you imagine what a real lawyer could do? Maybe a proper protest idea that would make vlad sweat a bit as opposed to some ned with a handwritten banner SO A JAMBO WITH A BANNERS A NED THEN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 SO A JAMBO WITH A BANNERS A NED THEN? If its anything like the pieman era protests around the stands then yes its quite possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lou Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 If its anything like the pieman era protests around the stands then yes its quite possible. Anyway when is the fundraising for your campagn starting?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jambomickey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 If its anything like the pieman era protests around the stands then yes its quite possible. RUBBISH! THAT WAS PASSIONATE HEARTS FANS DOING WHAT HAD TO BE DONE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegementality Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Post your thoughts on areas of the companies act, or any other relevent legal corporate legislation you feel vlad may have breached or infringed in some way. Or any employee of hearts. Likewise any Fifa, SFA, UEFA, European directive. Im just intrigued to see how many people can come up with, I may get my old company law notes out in a few days and add some if I can be bothered I reckon we won't be short of suggestions, and if we can do this can you imagine what a real lawyer could do? Maybe a proper protest idea that would make vlad sweat a bit as opposed to some ned with a handwritten banner Priceless! you really are something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboLad Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Jambo38 really needs to get the boot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Im just intrigued to see how many people can come up with, I may get my old company law notes out in a few days and add some if I can be bothered The Company Law Act has just been updated, it is now the Company Law Act 2006, so you're notes may well be out of date. It is also the biggest Act ever written so whilst you're free to have a look it might take you a while. Rather you than me... Lets just burn his hoose doon..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheriff Fatman Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 RUBBISH! THAT WAS PASSIONATE HEARTS FANS DOING WHAT HAD TO BE DONE Aye, all the paper aeroplane throwing showed the Pieman, so it did. The real thing that had to be done was raise money and in that all those tens of thousands of passionate Jambos (barring a few thousand who did far more than they should have had to) were found wanting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jambomickey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Jambo38 really needs to get the boot! WHAT? GET THE BOOT FOR WHAT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 The Company Law Act has just been updated, it is now the Company Law Act 2006, so you're notes may well be out of date. It is also the biggest Act ever written so whilst you're free to have a look it might take you a while. Rather you than me... Lets just burn his hoose doon..... Tbh from the bits of the act I do remember - its been 5 years since I covered it - would not get rid of romanov It just would give us the ammunition to bury him in paperwork for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_R Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Jambo38 really needs to get the boot! why? at least everything he has said in this thread is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jambomickey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Aye, all the paper aeroplane throwing showed the Pieman, so it did. The real thing that had to be done was raise money and in that all those tens of thousands of passionate Jambos (barring a few thousand who did far more than they should have had to) were found wanting. THE HEARTS SUPPORT WERE FANTASTIC THROUGHOUT SAVE OUR HEARTS AND THE PROTESTS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboLad Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 For posting like a 12 year old contstantly with his capitals and stating the same thing over and over again. no need for the PM asking me to reply either. Yea I know your not twelve, your shareholder and go to the AGM blah blah blah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 THE HEARTS SUPPORT WERE FANTASTIC THROUGHOUT SAVE OUR HEARTS AND THE PROTESTS Even when engaging in violent and threatening activities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jambomickey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 For posting like a 12 year old contstantly with his capitals and stating the same thing over and over again. no need for the PM asking me to reply either. Yea I know your not twelve, your shareholder and go to the AGM blah blah blah I'LL KEEP SAYING IT AND WE'LL SEE WHO PROVED RIGHT IN THE END Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jambomickey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Even when engaging in violent and threatening activities? WHAT VIOLENCE AND THREATENING ACTIVITIES? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheriff Fatman Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 THE HEARTS SUPPORT WERE FANTASTIC THROUGHOUT SAVE OUR HEARTS AND THE PROTESTS Yup, a few thousand of them were, those that gave their time and money. Quite a lot more of them did feck all apart from make paper aeroplanes and cheer the one that went the furthest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jambomickey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Yup, a few thousand of them were, those that gave their time and money. Quite a lot more of them did feck all apart from make paper aeroplanes and cheer the one that went the furthest. there were some fans who weren't in a position to put money into save our hearts but were still there to voice there concern! as far as i'm concerned the hearts fans were fantastic through out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboLad Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 I'LL KEEP SAYING IT AND WE'LL SEE WHO PROVED RIGHT IN THE END Right about what? Posting in capitals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Jambo38 really needs to get the boot! Without naming any names - there are 2 people on this thread who many felt were Hobos. They work threads as a tag team. Apparently people have vouched for their Jambo status - it turns out they are just a bit simple, it's an easy mistake to make. Their illiterate, repetitive and banal ranting is quite tiresome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jambomickey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Without naming any names - there are 2 people on this thread who many felt were Hobos. They work threads as a tag team. Apparently people have vouched for their Jambo status - it turns out they are just a bit simple, it's an easy mistake to make. Their illiterate, repetitive and banal ranting is quite tiresome. you saying i'm a bit simple? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboLad Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 you saying i'm a bit simple? I think he might well be! PM him too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Sexington Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 you saying i'm a bit simple? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 you saying i'm a bit simple? That would contravene the board rules. As I said, 'not naming any names'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jambomickey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 be nice to meet a few in westfield and robbos when season starts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 be nice to meet a few in westfield and robbos when season starts Do you just stand there shouting the same thing over and over again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboLad Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 be nice to meet a few in westfield and robbos when season starts Whoaa is that an internet hardman talking??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jambomickey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Do you just stand there shouting the same thing over and over again? what you all about? this forum is for opinions! we may differ on our opinions but at the end of the day we passionate jambos. i'm entitled to my opinion just like you are yours! i may not agree with yours but i respect your right to your opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jambomickey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Whoaa is that an internet hardman talking??? thats you son! full of lip behind your computer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboLad Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Aye that's me. Full of lip. Always throwing threats about. I just cant help myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Aye that's me. Full of lip. Always throwing threats about. I just cant help myself. you good jambo. ME GOOD JAMBO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jambomickey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Aye that's me. Full of lip. Always throwing threats about. I just cant help myself. i don't throw threats about son! we all fellow jambos and we should be united together. don't see the point in arguing with each other! if we don't agree on a particular subject then don't reply on that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboLad Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 i don't throw threats about son! we all fellow jambos and we should be united together. don't see the point in arguing with each other! if we don't agree on a particular subject then don't reply on that one To be honest I never said you did really. I dont disagree with what your posts are saying but we all know about how everyone is feeling and dont need an update every 15 minutes. I just dont see the point in replying to countless threads saying the same things and also the constant posting in capitals is unneeded to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosewood Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 you saying i'm a bit simple? THIS THREAD IS GREAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jambomickey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 To be honest I never said you did really. I dont disagree with what your posts are saying but we all know about how everyone is feeling and dont need an update every 15 minutes. I just dont see the point in replying to countless threads saying the same things and also the constant posting in capitals is unneeded to be fair. this thread i was defending the hearts support! i've been all over europe with hearts over the years and the hearts fans do the club and scotland proud every single time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboLad Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 this thread i was defending the hearts support! i've been all over europe with hearts over the years and the hearts fans do the club and scotland proud every single time. Defending the Hearts support against the Hearts support Bit of a "simple" comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmfc_steve Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Post your thoughts on areas of the companies act, or any other relevent legal corporate legislation you feel vlad may have breached or infringed in some way. Or any employee of hearts. Likewise any Fifa, SFA, UEFA, European directive. Im just intrigued to see how many people can come up with, I may get my old company law notes out in a few days and add some if I can be bothered:rolleyes: I reckon we won't be short of suggestions, and if we can do this can you imagine what a real lawyer could do? Maybe a proper protest idea that would make vlad sweat a bit as opposed to some ned with a handwritten banner sure he stole someone's pension.... didn't he ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 As I've said on another thread how can VR be pulled up when he holds no official position with Heart of Midlothian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 As I've said on another thread how can VR be pulled up when he holds no official position with Heart of Midlothian? Im sure theres a section which deals with when people have influence not in keeping with there position Also that officers have to be working for all the shareholders Now granted a court would probably just compell everyone to sell to them but it would bury them in paperwork and cases for a while and maybe make the whole club less attractive to vlad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jambomickey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Defending the Hearts support against the Hearts support Bit of a "simple" comment started by the ned with a flag mate! as i've said lots of times i support hearts fc and we got the best and most loyal fans on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost in leith Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Post your thoughts on areas of the companies act, or any other relevent legal corporate legislation you feel vlad may have breached or infringed in some way. Or any employee of hearts. Likewise any Fifa, SFA, UEFA, European directive. Im just intrigued to see how many people can come up with, I may get my old company law notes out in a few days and add some if I can be bothered:rolleyes: I reckon we won't be short of suggestions, and if we can do this can you imagine what a real lawyer could do? Maybe a proper protest idea that would make vlad sweat a bit as opposed to some ned with a handwritten banner There was a decent argument that the Purveyor of Pastries sailed close to the wind. As a director he was responsible for looking after the interests of shareholders. A lot of people, including some 'professional' lawyers, felt that he deliberately sabotaged takeover proposals because they were conditional on him being removed as Chief Executive. In other words he put his own financial interests before the interests of shareholders as a whole. These concerns were put to the Department of Trade and Industry. They replied saying these were a matter for the shareholders to sort out. Shortly afterwards the PoP sold out to Vlad. The point of the story is that you would need a real smoking gun to get the regulators interested in a diddy wee company based in Edinburgh. The best I can come up with is that the directors are trading whilst insolvent. This has been the case since before Vlad, and the fear of being convicted of this might have been one factor in the PoP pushing the Murrayfield plan. Whilst Vlad and his associates control the company, they still have to look after us diddy wee shareholders. Shareholder funds were down just over ?18m in 2 years if you compare the position at 31/7/05 and 31/7/07. I assume that the directors have had advice that they are not trading whilst insolvent, and that the wording on page 14 of the Accounts under "Going concern" is enough to cover their erses. I don't know enough about company law to say one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 There was a decent argument that the Purveyor of Pastries sailed close to the wind. As a director he was responsible for looking after the interests of shareholders. A lot of people, including some 'professional' lawyers, felt that he deliberately sabotaged takeover proposals because they were conditional on him being removed as Chief Executive. In other words he put his own financial interests before the interests of shareholders as a whole. These concerns were put to the Department of Trade and Industry. They replied saying these were a matter for the shareholders to sort out. Shortly afterwards the PoP sold out to Vlad. The point of the story is that you would need a real smoking gun to get the regulators interested in a diddy wee company based in Edinburgh. The best I can come up with is that the directors are trading whilst insolvent. This has been the case since before Vlad, and the fear of being convicted of this might have been one factor in the PoP pushing the Murrayfield plan. Whilst Vlad and his associates control the company, they still have to look after us diddy wee shareholders. Shareholder funds were down just over ?18m in 2 years if you compare the position at 31/7/05 and 31/7/07. I assume that the directors have had advice that they are not trading whilst insolvent, and that the wording on page 14 of the Accounts under "Going concern" is enough to cover their erses. I don't know enough about company law to say one way or another. My point isnt so much winning these cases because the courts would just likely compel a sell out of the minority but more tying up as much of vlad and cos money and time in fighting these cases and making things as uncomfortable as possible I very much doubt his business interests would benefit from regular court proceedings for suggested illegal behaviour in a company law respect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 My point isnt so much winning these cases because the courts would just likely compel a sell out of the minority but more tying up as much of vlad and cos money and time in fighting these cases and making things as uncomfortable as possible You realise that legal fees work both ways, right? You also realise that a judge would immediately throw the case out, when he learns that you're evidently just trying to tie someone to expensive fees? No, thought not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 You realise that legal fees work both ways, right? You also realise that a judge would immediately throw the case out, when he learns that you're evidently just trying to tie someone to expensive fees? No, thought not. If you read the first thread you would see I mentioned legal costs and also a judge couldnt throw out a bonafide case. Im not talking about pursuing groundless cases, just tying him up where there are reasonable questions to answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acey Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 If you read the first thread you would see I mentioned legal costs and also a judge couldnt throw out a bonafide case. Im not talking about pursuing groundless cases, just tying him up where there are reasonable questions to answer What "first thread"? If you mean the OP, no, you didn't mention legal fees. There's also a big difference between, "we'd like some questions answered" and, "we're bringing an action against you, during which we hope to get some questions answered". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bean counter Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I assume that the directors have had advice that they are not trading whilst insolvent, and that the wording on page 14 of the Accounts under "Going concern" is enough to cover their erses. I don't know enough about company law to say one way or another. They will have done and will be able to continue to trade as long as they have the support of the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H J Simpson Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Yup, a few thousand of them were, those that gave their time and money. Quite a lot more of them did feck all apart from make paper aeroplanes and cheer the one that went the furthest. Ah, great memories.The sight of the one launched from row 27 Section F nearly making the penaly box will live long in the memory. It was a damn sight more entertaining than the dross on the park last season. The only thing coming close was watching a seagul land on the park and wander around for 5 minutes without a person or ball coming near him. Roll on next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Althought I wouldnt say I was an "amateur" lawyer.... From memory the minority shareholders in a company can raise a Court of Session petition if they consider the actions of the majority shareholder are oppresive and against the best interests of the company as a whole The problem is, I think, that even if successful, a favourable decision is relatively toothless and cant really get to the crux of the problem So expensive but it would generate publicity We're talking 8 years since I came across this though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Althought I wouldnt say I was an "amateur" lawyer.... From memory the minority shareholders in a company can raise a Court of Session petition if they consider the actions of the majority shareholder are oppresive and against the best interests of the company as a whole The problem is, I think, that even if successful, a favourable decision is relatively toothless and cant really get to the crux of the problem So expensive but it would generate publicity We're talking 8 years since I came across this though.... Aye you wouldn't but others might!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.