siegementality Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I wasn't comparing us to Arsenal - I was making the point that their owners aren't hands on - like Farmer isn't - in fact they don't even have one outright owner but instead a loosely controlling group of separate shareholders so they are completely different to Hearts....you were saying the onwer had to be hands on as if this was a necessity...i said it needn't be - it was the day to day people who were important. I think you'll find he said if things were basically the same (same hands on approach as VR) but the new potential owner was less of a ****** would you take him yes or no?. 10 posts later you still haven't managed the yes, or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegementality Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 No Iam not blaming chalrie mann for anything - it was just an observation - he resigned saying Hearts & Romanov wanted less communication but overnight communication seemed to improve remarkably - it has often been commented upon here how communication is much better & the website etc. so maybe the people now are doing a better job? If you remember correctly CM parted company with VR because VR wanted less communication. As you rightly point out communication has increased. What does that tell you about VR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 If you remember correctly CM parted company with VR because VR wanted less communication. As you rightly point out communication has increased. What does that tell you about VR? He wanted less communication with Charlie Mann? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I think you'll find he said if things were basically the same (same hands on approach as VR) but the new potential owner was less of a ****** would you take him yes or no?. 10 posts later you still haven't managed the yes, or no. This is what magicT's actually said ."...but at the same time have a far more hands on approach to the club and the decency to communicate properly with the fans would you want him out ?" So I made my thoughts that the owner having a hands on approach isn't a necessity & cited Hibs & Arsenal as examples where they have day to day people running the club instead- you can agree or disagree whatever your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegementality Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 He wanted less communication with Charlie Mann? Actually I was thinking more along the lines of lying son of a bitch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegementality Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 This is what magicT's actually said."...but at the same time have a far more hands on approach to the club and the decency to communicate properly with the fans would you want him out ?" So I made my thoughts that the owner having a hands on approach isn't a necessity & cited Hibs & Arsenal as examples where they have day to day people running the club instead- you can agree or disagree whatever your opinion. Fair enough. But do us a favour FFS, answer the question, if everything met with your satisfaction would you be happy to see the back of Romanov, yes or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicTs Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 This is what magicT's actually said."...but at the same time have a far more hands on approach to the club and the decency to communicate properly with the fans would you want him out ?" So I made my thoughts that the owner having a hands on approach isn't a necessity & cited Hibs & Arsenal as examples where they have day to day people running the club instead- you can agree or disagree whatever your opinion. You misinterpreted what I said to suit your agenda. We don't have anybody in senior positions who are 'hands on'. We don't even have a Chairman ffs. The Romanov's have stripped the club of Hearts minded people in important roles. You are shameless in your defence of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Fair enough. But do us a favour FFS, answer the question, if everything met with your satisfaction would you be happy to see the back of Romanov, yes or no? If EVERYTHING met with my satisfaction then I would be the owner of Hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 You misinterpreted what I said to suit your agenda. We don't have anybody in senior positions who are 'hands on'. We don't even have a Chairman ffs. The Romanov's have stripped the club of Hearts minded people in important roles. You are shameless in your defence of them. Eh? your getting carried away - and having an agenda - I answered your question simply and then explained it - I never once made any reference to Hearts - all i did was list a couple of other clubs where the owners weren't directly hands on but had people working day to day for them in those roles so it was you just twisted what i said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegementality Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 If EVERYTHING met with my satisfaction then I would be the owner of Hearts. Your like the fecking Chinse water treatment. Well done you've bored me to death! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Your like the fecking Chinse water treatment. Well done you've bored me to death! Again, why is it so important for him to answer the question? It isn't of interest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Again, why is it so important for him to answer the question? It isn't of interest! He's just obsessed GK anyway someone turned this thread into a newspaper article http://sport.scotsman.com/football/Little-room-left-for-manoeuvre.4525909.jp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 He's just obsessed GK anyway someone turned this thread into a newspaper article http://sport.scotsman.com/football/Little-room-left-for-manoeuvre.4525909.jp I read that as well. You can tell the press are DESPERATE for this whole 'pay run' to fail again as it is weeks of easy stories and lazy journalism. They would be far better served doing some digging around UBIG's performance. As I've often said, as long as UBIG's other companies outperform HMFC, then the funds should exist to support HMFC, provided Vlad supports the business. If UBIG are in trouble, then they may need to dispose of assets. HMFC can hardly be seen as a core asset to UBIG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I read that as well. You can tell the press are DESPERATE for this whole 'pay run' to fail again as it is weeks of easy stories and lazy journalism. They would be far better served doing some digging around UBIG's performance. As I've often said, as long as UBIG's other companies outperform HMFC, then the funds should exist to support HMFC, provided Vlad supports the business. If UBIG are in trouble, then they may need to dispose of assets. HMFC can hardly be seen as a core asset to UBIG. I think that the magic number must be something like ?10m. ?10m worth of debt plus equity for all the Hearts assets, severing all relationships with the pyramid, could mean a sustainable business taken on by someone. Must be not far off the value of the land at present too, so would provide some collateral for the borrowing by any new owner. Is there ?10m out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I think that the magic number must be something like ?10m. ?10m worth of debt plus equity for all the Hearts assets, severing all relationships with the pyramid, could mean a sustainable business taken on by someone. Must be not far off the value of the land at present too, so would provide some collateral for the borrowing by any new owner. Is there ?10m out there? Ach, we'll just ask the US Treasury. Job done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Ach, we'll just ask the US Treasury. Job done! Hank the hunk will soon have the right to buy whatever he wants! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I think that the magic number must be something like ?10m. ?10m worth of debt plus equity for all the Hearts assets, severing all relationships with the pyramid, could mean a sustainable business taken on by someone. Must be not far off the value of the land at present too, so would provide some collateral for the borrowing by any new owner. Is there ?10m out there? This seems to be a very low valuation Coco - how did you arrive at it? I think the best that could be expected would be the club debt returned approx to take-over level and the equity over and above that. So you would be talking ?20M debt + somewhere between ?5-10M for the shares. Of course if they were desperate for a quick sale they would have to take whatever level of offers were made but realistically I don't think UBIG or UKIO would take much of a write down on the money they've invested or loaned below the situation they inherited. Anyway unless potential new buyers reveal themselves over the coming weeks or months or unless UBIG were forced to pull the plug then I don't expect or base my thoughts around a change of ownership anytime soon. The reality is that under Romanov or any other owner Hearts have to continue steps to bring costs into line with revenue. Failure to do this will just see a continuation of the financial problems of the last decade or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 This seems to be a very low valuation Coco - how did you arrive at it? I think the best that could be expected would be the club debt returned approx to take-over level and the equity over and above that. So you would be talking ?20M debt + somewhere between ?5-10M for the shares. Of course if they were desperate for a quick sale they would have to take whatever level of offers were made but realistically I don't think UBIG or UKIO would take much of a write down on the money they've invested or loaned below the situation they inherited. Anyway unless potential new buyers reveal themselves over the coming weeks or months or unless UBIG were forced to pull the plug then I don't expect or base my thoughts around a change of ownership anytime soon. The reality is that under Romanov or any other owner Hearts have to continue steps to bring costs into line with revenue. Failure to do this will just see a continuation of the financial problems of the last decade or so. As you say it is a perenially loss making business - other than exceptional years such as the Craig Gordon Accounts Year. So there is little value in the actual business. To change the structure of the business would require wholescale investment - of the sort UBIG have not been capable of so far - and therefore that sort of premium would not be included in the price. So you have to look at the value of the assets. The CALA bid was in reality at something like ?18m (if you exclude the build on every square yard top estimate of ?21m or so). In the current situation - if there was to actually be a buyer (all housebuilders are sellers rather than buyers at the moment) -then it is surely fair to say that land values have halved. So my ?10m guess is based on a prudent value of the land - and enabling a sustainable business going forward. Given some of the players have what on the surface seem to be generous contracts beyond what the club can afford perhaps the playing staff are not a significant value proposition either. What VR/UBIG paid for the business/assets in the past is irrelevant to a new buyer (other than UBIG's fear of making losses on sale), particularly if they are forced to sell. There might be a similar situation with the St Andrew's Square building they bought at the top of the market - which probably is nursing paper losses in the region of 30-40% or so at the moment. I agree with your view that running the business on an unsustainable loss making basis is lunatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Hank the hunk will soon have the right to buy whatever he wants! He'll certainly have the cash for it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heart & soul Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 What goes then? I have a few mates who are very well connected to the club stating that we're in a bad way. We need to make provisions. I hope its wrong, but my gut feeling that its not. So what do we do if we got tats up. I'm willing to put all my savings into the club to rescue it, if it means we can survive. If it all went pear shaped I'd be up for standing outside Fester Road every other week dishing out slaps as the hobos entered and left the sh@thole. I would double my pleaser when the soap dodgers come to town. Anyone up for joining me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerah Jambo Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Ach, we'll just ask the US Treasury. Job done! Yup, maybe should ask George W to do a State Of The Nation on Hearts World :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.