shaun.lawson Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I was chatting with another couple of posters about this the other week (they know who they are ) - but you know what I don't get about this place? It's the way so many Kickbackers effectively gamble on the future all the time, by tying themselves to one side of the argument or the other. It's weird. You have those who think Vlad will be the end of us; or those who think he's the best thing to have ever happened to us. Then you have those who think he'll sell pretty soon, and others who believe he's committed for the long haul (not necessarily mutually exclusive positions, to be fair) - and then you have what's happened this week. Is it, as the club have argued, just a technical hitch? Is it just a result of a short-term cashflow issue? Or is it a symptom of a far deeper malaise? The thing is, we don't know - none of us do. And sure, you can attempt to weigh up all the evidence and come to some sort of conclusion; but ultimately, it's all just hearsay and guesswork, isn't it? And I certainly include myself in that too. So why do it? Why make a rod for your own back by making some black-and-white statement at either end of the spectrum when there's no way on earth of knowing if you're right - and when so much secrecy always surrounds the club anyway? I just don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Me either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Weathers Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I take things as they come and never trust anyone. ...and it's the same following Hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 This isnt the only board to be affected by such matters. Far too many Jambos on the whole, either support one or other and have firmly laid themselves in one camp. I dont see the point in doing that nor do I take everything written in papers, here or other messageboards as the complete be all and end all of the situation. I would rather balance out all the info and make a judgement from there. I give Vlad praise when he deserves it. I give him pelters when he deserves it. (Though I do have a tendency to stick up for him when uninformed ****stirrers from other clubs tell me and the Hearts support what is wrong with our club and how we should fix it. Everyone has opinion on us but no one really knows properly what the true story is.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I was chatting with another couple of posters about this the other week (they know who they are ) - but you know what I don't get about this place? It's the way so many Kickbackers effectively gamble on the future all the time, by tying themselves to one side of the argument or the other. It's weird. You have those who think Vlad will be the end of us; or those who think he's the best thing to have ever happened to us. Then you have those who think he'll sell pretty soon, and others who believe he's committed for the long haul (not necessarily mutually exclusive positions, to be fair) - and then you have what's happened this week. Is it, as the club have argued, just a technical hitch? Is it just a result of a short-term cashflow issue? Or is it a symptom of a far deeper malaise? The thing is, we don't know - none of us do. And sure, you can attempt to weigh up all the evidence and come to some sort of conclusion; but ultimately, it's all just hearsay and guesswork, isn't it? And I certainly include myself in that too. So why do it? Why make a rod for your own back by making some black-and-white statement at either end of the spectrum when there's no way on earth of knowing if you're right - and when so much secrecy always surrounds the club anyway? I just don't get it. Because I'd rather state my opinion than sit on any fence, like a woolly liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 Because I'd rather state my opinion than sit on any fence, like a woolly liberal. Ouch! But as Lord BJ said above, there's a difference between stating an opinion and painting yourself into a corner - not that you're guilty of the latter, in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmo Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I was chatting with another couple of posters about this the other week (they know who they are ) - but you know what I don't get about this place? It's the way so many Kickbackers effectively gamble on the future all the time, by tying themselves to one side of the argument or the other. It's weird. You have those who think Vlad will be the end of us; or those who think he's the best thing to have ever happened to us. Then you have those who think he'll sell pretty soon, and others who believe he's committed for the long haul (not necessarily mutually exclusive positions, to be fair) - and then you have what's happened this week. Is it, as the club have argued, just a technical hitch? Is it just a result of a short-term cashflow issue? Or is it a symptom of a far deeper malaise? The thing is, we don't know - none of us do. And sure, you can attempt to weigh up all the evidence and come to some sort of conclusion; but ultimately, it's all just hearsay and guesswork, isn't it? And I certainly include myself in that too. So why do it? Why make a rod for your own back by making some black-and-white statement at either end of the spectrum when there's no way on earth of knowing if you're right - and when so much secrecy always surrounds the club anyway? I just don't get it. Yes but where do you think all the sh*te in the Daily Records comes from ? These halfwits read JKB posts and the bring them out as 'Exclusives'. e.g. the spiel about 'furious Hearts players are going on strike,!!!!!! Even after young Berra issues a fairly firm that he didn't know where that came from they twist his statement into an 'Aye right' type of story next day. Posters on here have been warned over and over again to think twicw about posting rumours but they are as bad as the journos and we all suffer from this malaise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stanley_ Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I'm not in either of the extremes but it is getting more and more difficult to read this board. People at both ends of the extreme (positive and negative) are starting to irritate me now with their arguments about every single thing either being brilliant at Hearts or awful. Neither extreme is right and I wish they'd give it a rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I was chatting with another couple of posters about this the other week (they know who they are ) - but you know what I don't get about this place? It's the way so many Kickbackers effectively gamble on the future all the time, by tying themselves to one side of the argument or the other. It's weird. You have those who think Vlad will be the end of us; or those who think he's the best thing to have ever happened to us. Then you have those who think he'll sell pretty soon, and others who believe he's committed for the long haul (not necessarily mutually exclusive positions, to be fair) - and then you have what's happened this week. Is it, as the club have argued, just a technical hitch? Is it just a result of a short-term cashflow issue? Or is it a symptom of a far deeper malaise? The thing is, we don't know - none of us do. And sure, you can attempt to weigh up all the evidence and come to some sort of conclusion; but ultimately, it's all just hearsay and guesswork, isn't it? And I certainly include myself in that too. So why do it? Why make a rod for your own back by making some black-and-white statement at either end of the spectrum when there's no way on earth of knowing if you're right - and when so much secrecy always surrounds the club anyway? I just don't get it. Its having an opinion, and being prepared to stick by it, rather than sit on the fence. Debating football is not about posturing to make sure you end up on the winning side at the end... Id be happy to be proved wrong, but until then, id rather have an opinion to discuss. otherwise we may as well not talk about anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cylawny Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I was chatting with another couple of posters about this the other week (they know who they are ) - but you know what I don't get about this place? It's the way so many Kickbackers effectively gamble on the future all the time, by tying themselves to one side of the argument or the other. It's weird. You have those who think Vlad will be the end of us; I just don't get it. My views are entrenched. I formed an opinion on the available evidence early in the game. Have not seen any evidence to the contrary, so formed opinion stands. No point or need to pontificate about it tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 Its having an opinion, and being prepared to stick by it, rather than sit on the fence. Whatever happened to allowing an opinion to evolve according to events, as opposed to fitting all events to one's already formed opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Do you know where hell is Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I was chatting with another couple of posters about this the other week (they know who they are ) - but you know what I don't get about this place? It's the way so many Kickbackers effectively gamble on the future all the time, by tying themselves to one side of the argument or the other. It's weird. You have those who think Vlad will be the end of us; or those who think he's the best thing to have ever happened to us. Then you have those who think he'll sell pretty soon, and others who believe he's committed for the long haul (not necessarily mutually exclusive positions, to be fair) - and then you have what's happened this week. Is it, as the club have argued, just a technical hitch? Is it just a result of a short-term cashflow issue? Or is it a symptom of a far deeper malaise? The thing is, we don't know - none of us do. And sure, you can attempt to weigh up all the evidence and come to some sort of conclusion; but ultimately, it's all just hearsay and guesswork, isn't it? And I certainly include myself in that too. So why do it? Why make a rod for your own back by making some black-and-white statement at either end of the spectrum when there's no way on earth of knowing if you're right - and when so much secrecy always surrounds the club anyway? I just don't get it. I think you've just described life in general, it is the exact same all over the world on nearly every subject. Nobody knows whats going to happen with 100% certainty in most situations, people react to things differently, i dont think people are making a rod for their backs unless they're unwilling to admit their wrong if proved so. Speculation is always going to happen when people are passionate about a something, discussion and debate is after all, the whole point of this forum, if we all had the same opinion it would be a very boring place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Whatever happened to allowing an opinion to evolve according to events, as opposed to fitting all events to one's already formed opinion? The opinion is based on the evidence currently available. No point only forming an opinion when things are all done and dusted. because thats not an opinion, thats just facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbie_Burns Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Posters on here have been warned over and over again to think twicw about posting rumours but they are as bad as the journos and we all suffer from this malaise. Yes but dont you think that not all posters on this board have Hearts best intentions in mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 I think you've just described life in general, it is the exact same all over the world on nearly every subject. Nobody knows whats going to happen with 100% certainty in most situations, people react to things differently, i dont think people are making a rod for their backs unless they're unwilling to admit their wrong if proved so. Speculation is always going to happen when people are passionate about a something, discussion and debate is after all, the whole point of this forum, if we all had the same opinion it would be a very boring place. True - and to be fair, the OP probably represents the bookish academic in me which tends to avoid risk briefly triumphing over the more emotional one. Temporary glitch, I hope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Yes but where do you think all the sh*te in the Daily Records comes from ? These halfwits read JKB posts and the bring them out as 'Exclusives'. e.g. the spiel about 'furious Hearts players are going on strike,!!!!!! Even after young Berra issues a fairly firm that he didn't know where that came from they twist his statement into an 'Aye right' type of story next day. Posters on here have been warned over and over again to think twicw about posting rumours but they are as bad as the journos and we all suffer from this malaise. This is a messageboard which is basically a place for people to air their views and chat about Hearts. This will take the form of telling folks about rumours they hear, it's like any board - that's it's purpose and it's not up to us to edit or moderate our board content because the Daily Ranger et al take their stories from it, it's up to the editors of these papers to make sure the stories they run with are not heresay but factually correct information. I think it's the same situation with the OP, it's the nature of the messageboard beast that people have their opinions but here they can air them, others disagree and that's where it seems like people are painting themselves into a corner, they feel they have to defend their stance at all costs, I think more so on here because at the moment we fans are so divided over Romanov and the extreme polarisation of views leads to people reading some posts where they simply can't understand where the poster is coming from and it escalates from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAYEL Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 This isnt the only board to be affected by such matters. Far too many Jambos on the whole, either support one or other and have firmly laid themselves in one camp. I dont see the point in doing that nor do I take everything written in papers, here or other messageboards as the complete be all and end all of the situation. I would rather balance out all the info and make a judgement from there. I give Vlad praise when he deserves it. I give him pelters when he deserves it. (Though I do have a tendency to stick up for him when uninformed ****stirrers from other clubs tell me and the Hearts support what is wrong with our club and how we should fix it. Everyone has opinion on us but no one really knows properly what the true story is.) Totally agree Chester. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leginten Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 The opinion is based on the evidence currently available. No point only forming an opinion when things are all done and dusted. because thats not an opinion, thats just facts. Agree entirely with your point. But it appears to me to fly in the face of your frequent urgings not to speculate on stories until the facts are available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Freewheelin' Jambo Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I am firmly in the camp re Oliver Cromwell of Vladimir Romanov: In the the name of God, go. All I want is him gone, the debt reduced somehow and sensible ownership of our club. If it means: administration point deduction relegation selling Tynecastle playing at Murrayfield I would accept all that to see the back of him, his odious regime our debt within acceptable limits and our club run properly. And our self respect back as a great institution. There are undoubtedly sensible people out there willing to take Hearts on as a viable option. This man Romanov's pig-headed stubborness seems to be preventing it. Like everyone however, he has his price though. I don't know any Jambo that wants him at our club. Only this forum seems to be a refuge for the most outlandish support for this man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Whatever happened to allowing an opinion to evolve according to events, as opposed to fitting all events to one's already formed opinion? Some people do that better than others. But unfortunately, the nature of this board is such that people are often given a really hard time for having changed their minds. There's a weird tradition of quoting posts from months beforehand where the same poster has expressed an opinion which they have now contradicted. People are hung, drawn and quartered if they change their opinion on anything and doing so is often used as a means of challenging their credibility. It confuses me too. This stuff isn't static and it's human nature to let ideas evolve over time. Tis frowned upon in some quarters on JKB though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Shaun, it's merely life in the age of t'internet. In the days pre internet, all we had was soundbites in the Evening News and the rest of the press with the occasional TV interview. Issues were discussed between small groups of mates in the pub or with workmates (still are to be fair). Simpler times my friend! Now, everything is under the microscope, rolling news, yadda yadda yadda. The other thing about the internet is, and I am going to sound such a tosser for saying this, is that anyone regardless of mental capacity can post whatever they want. Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to put forth their point of view, however on emotive issues, a football club being one such issue, you can get a pretty lowest common denominator/"passionate" reply to whatever is being discussed. That's why positions seem so entrenched because argument is stifled. There is no reasoning between opposite views, no discussion. Everything is "for us or agin us". Yet ironically, the internet is supposed to develop argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T.F.Robertson Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Because those who see the possibility for a grey, as opposed to a black or a white, win feck all. The "extremists" are, invariably, the daddies. I think there are the few on here who see themselves as almost exalted by the many, due to their "infamy" on an anonymous messageboard. Does my nut! Could be all my problem though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pennantjambo Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I was chatting with another couple of posters about this the other week (they know who they are ) - but you know what I don't get about this place? It's the way so many Kickbackers effectively gamble on the future all the time, by tying themselves to one side of the argument or the other. It's weird. You have those who think Vlad will be the end of us; or those who think he's the best thing to have ever happened to us. Then you have those who think he'll sell pretty soon, and others who believe he's committed for the long haul (not necessarily mutually exclusive positions, to be fair) - and then you have what's happened this week. Is it, as the club have argued, just a technical hitch? Is it just a result of a short-term cashflow issue? Or is it a symptom of a far deeper malaise? The thing is, we don't know - none of us do. And sure, you can attempt to weigh up all the evidence and come to some sort of conclusion; but ultimately, it's all just hearsay and guesswork, isn't it? And I certainly include myself in that too. So why do it? Why make a rod for your own back by making some black-and-white statement at either end of the spectrum when there's no way on earth of knowing if you're right - and when so much secrecy always surrounds the club anyway? I just don't get it. You've answered your own question SL. VR and his boy tell us nowt, therefore no evidence or conclusion just the usual KB speculation which divides opinion imo. As long as the aforementioned remain in "total control" @ the club there will always be secrecy. I imagine UBIG are vulnerable @ the moment like most financial institutions just now, which means he is not immune either from "technical hitches". The sensible reaction to financial problems is to tighten the purse strings and cut back on luxury goods/hobbies/playthings etc. It will be interesting to see if this glitch occurs again this year? Surviving since 1874 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stanley_ Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 The other thing about the internet is, and I am going to sound such a tosser for saying this, is that anyone regardless of mental capacity can post whatever they want. Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to put forth their point of view, however on emotive issues, a football club being one such issue, you can get a pretty lowest common denominator/"passionate" reply to whatever is being discussed. That's why positions seem so entrenched because argument is stifled. There is no reasoning between opposite views, no discussion. Everything is "for us or agin us". Yet ironically, the internet is supposed to develop argument... You are correct. The more the internet grows, the more people who have access to it. This has meant that there are now more people on here with posts such as "Mad Vald out!!!!!1" and "u lot shud b boy cottin the games rite noo" etc. I'm certain also that there is an aspect where some people post slightly more extreme views than they normally hold so that they get recognised on here. Anyone who cares about being popular or well known on a messageboard really has no life in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 The only time I've done that and lived to regret it was on the original Irvine Jambo thread! Made a proper Ibrahim Hemdani of myself on that occasion. Otherwise I tend to sit on the fence unless I'm absolutely sure of something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 VR and his boy tell us nowt, therefore no evidence or conclusion just the usual KB speculation which divides opinion imo. How much did Mercer tell us? How much did CPR telll us? Genuine question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 Some people do that better than others. But unfortunately, the nature of this board is such that people are often given a really hard time for having changed their minds. There's a weird tradition of quoting posts from months beforehand where the same poster has expressed an opinion which they have now contradicted. People are hung, drawn and quartered if they change their opinion on anything and doing so is often used as a means of challenging their credibility. It confuses me too. This stuff isn't static and it's human nature to let ideas evolve over time. Tis frowned upon in some quarters on JKB though. Well, indeed. I think the worst leaders are those unable to evolve and adapt according to changing circumstances - yet on internet messageboards, it's frowned upon! And I say that as someone who has made a monumental prat of myself on more than one occasion: I call it my Hitler Diaries moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I was chatting with another couple of posters about this the other week (they know who they are ) - but you know what I don't get about this place? It's the way so many Kickbackers effectively gamble on the future all the time, by tying themselves to one side of the argument or the other. It's weird. You have those who think Vlad will be the end of us; or those who think he's the best thing to have ever happened to us. Then you have those who think he'll sell pretty soon, and others who believe he's committed for the long haul (not necessarily mutually exclusive positions, to be fair) - and then you have what's happened this week. Is it, as the club have argued, just a technical hitch? Is it just a result of a short-term cashflow issue? Or is it a symptom of a far deeper malaise? The thing is, we don't know - none of us do. And sure, you can attempt to weigh up all the evidence and come to some sort of conclusion; but ultimately, it's all just hearsay and guesswork, isn't it? And I certainly include myself in that too. So why do it? Why make a rod for your own back by making some black-and-white statement at either end of the spectrum when there's no way on earth of knowing if you're right - and when so much secrecy always surrounds the club anyway? I just don't get it. I think I mentioned this to someone who has posted on this thread already Shaun (redm - Lee) earlier in the week. There is no real scope, or seems to be no real scope for views which could be classed as "middle of the road" on JKB. I don't know if other Hearts forums are the same as I do not use any other forums. And as has been said people who do "go with the flow" and possibly change their take on things as they evolve tend to get castigated for it unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leginten Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I call it my Hitler Diaries moment. Schtonk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 Shaun, it's merely life in the age of t'internet. In the days pre internet, all we had was soundbites in the Evening News and the rest of the press with the occasional TV interview. Issues were discussed between small groups of mates in the pub or with workmates (still are to be fair). Simpler times my friend! Now, everything is under the microscope, rolling news, yadda yadda yadda. The other thing about the internet is, and I am going to sound such a tosser for saying this, is that anyone regardless of mental capacity can post whatever they want. Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to put forth their point of view, however on emotive issues, a football club being one such issue, you can get a pretty lowest common denominator/"passionate" reply to whatever is being discussed. That's why positions seem so entrenched because argument is stifled. There is no reasoning between opposite views, no discussion. Everything is "for us or agin us". Yet ironically, the internet is supposed to develop argument... True. There's a Newcastle messageboard I use sometimes - and while the desire to predict the future isn't necessarily as bad on there, the instant reactions to anything emerging (eg. tonight, Venables turning them down) are just the same. It can't be helped I guess. Your point about mental capacities reminds me of a story I'm fond of retelling. There I was in Politics A Level class, aged 16 - and stuck my hand up with the following point. "Sir, this democracy idea - it's awful! Because most people are too thick to know what's good for them!" What a tosser, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 True. There's a Newcastle messageboard I use sometimes - and while the desire to predict the future isn't necessarily as bad on there, the instant reactions to anything emerging (eg. tonight, Venables turning them down) are just the same. It can't be helped I guess. Your point about mental capacities reminds me of a story I'm fond of retelling. There I was in Politics A Level class, aged 16 - and stuck my hand up with the following point. "Sir, this democracy idea - it's awful! Because most people are too thick to know what's good for them!" What a tosser, eh? I suppose that's the point Shaun. We all know best! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guess The Crowd Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I was chatting with another couple of posters about this the other week (they know who they are ) - but you know what I don't get about this place? It's the way so many Kickbackers effectively gamble on the future all the time, by tying themselves to one side of the argument or the other. It's weird. You have those who think Vlad will be the end of us; or those who think he's the best thing to have ever happened to us. Then you have those who think he'll sell pretty soon, and others who believe he's committed for the long haul (not necessarily mutually exclusive positions, to be fair) - and then you have what's happened this week. Is it, as the club have argued, just a technical hitch? Is it just a result of a short-term cashflow issue? Or is it a symptom of a far deeper malaise? The thing is, we don't know - none of us do. And sure, you can attempt to weigh up all the evidence and come to some sort of conclusion; but ultimately, it's all just hearsay and guesswork, isn't it? And I certainly include myself in that too. So why do it? Why make a rod for your own back by making some black-and-white statement at either end of the spectrum when there's no way on earth of knowing if you're right - and when so much secrecy always surrounds the club anyway? I just don't get it. Shaun, To be fair, did you not do exactly that when July 1st came along (the date you'd set as a 'reasonable' deadline) without us having appointed a manager? You seemed to take the arrival of this date as being proof that there was no serious intent to appoint a good manager (despite the McGhee saga) and yet, there we were, two weeks later, with a really good guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 Shaun, To be fair, did you not do exactly that when July 1st came along (the date you'd set as a 'reasonable' deadline) without us having appointed a manager? You seemed to take the arrival of this date as being proof that there was no serious intent to appoint a good manager (despite the McGhee saga) and yet, there we were, two weeks later, with a really good guy. That's a very good point. My justification for this is it wasn't just my date - it also appeared to be Fedotovas', Charlie Mann's and Save Our Hearts' as well. In my defence though, I was at least happy to scale things back once the manager was appointed - evolving according to events, if you see what I mean - rather than adopt a more extreme position of "it doesn't matter: he's just a puppet, and we know enough about Vlad anyway to know he'll be the death of us". Because such a stance would've made me look a right chump - and been wholly unreasonable too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benzinho Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 This isnt the only board to be affected by such matters. Far too many Jambos on the whole, either support one or other and have firmly laid themselves in one camp. I dont see the point in doing that nor do I take everything written in papers, here or other messageboards as the complete be all and end all of the situation. I would rather balance out all the info and make a judgement from there. I give Vlad praise when he deserves it. I give him pelters when he deserves it. (Though I do have a tendency to stick up for him when uninformed ****stirrers from other clubs tell me and the Hearts support what is wrong with our club and how we should fix it. Everyone has opinion on us but no one really knows properly what the true story is.) Think you've described exactly how I feel about it, especially the last bit, other teams fans telling me how bad it all must be really gets my back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Whatever happened to allowing an opinion to evolve according to events, as opposed to fitting all events to one's already formed opinion? To quote John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind". Amongst all the other nonsense that has happened at Tynecastle over the past 3 years, the one constant I have always stated is Vlad's raison d'etre for being at Tynecastle, viz. the showcasing of Lithuanian players in an aim for them to reach the higher leagues in Europe and therefore earn big transfer monies. Now, whether his methods of implementing that policy were correct or not is immaterial to the ultimate goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guess The Crowd Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 That's a very good point. My justification for this is it wasn't just my date - it also appeared to be Fedotovas', Charlie Mann's and Save Our Hearts' as well. In my defence though, I was at least happy to scale things back once the manager was appointed - evolving according to events, if you see what I mean - rather than adopt a more extreme position of "it doesn't matter: he's just a puppet, and we know enough about Vlad anyway to know he'll be the death of us". Because such a stance would've made me look like a right chump - and been wholly unreasonable too. OK, I'll let you off! Complete change of tack, let me run this one buy you. If / when a holding company goes bust, can't a subsidiary company be bought from the receivers of that company, 'on the cheap' potentially? You see where I'm going with this, no doubt...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 OK, I'll let you off! Complete change of tack, let me run this one buy you. If / when a holding company goes bust, can't a subsidiary company be bought from the receivers of that company, 'on the cheap' potentially? You see where I'm going with this, no doubt...... Leeds United and Ken Bates? Or are you talking about a new holding company coming in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 We speculate about rumour and ponder scenarios until the truth comes out. Sometimes the truth is good, sometimes bad. About some things we are still waiting for the truth to emerge. Same premiss as the X-Files which is why it was a good TV show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guess The Crowd Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Leeds United and Ken Bates? Or are you talking about a new holding company coming in? If UBIG / UKIO were to go bust, surely someone could then come along and buy one of its subsidiary companies, ie Hearts, from the receivers? In that situation, the buyer would not be obligated to repay to UBIG /UKIO the same figure that they are owed by Hearts, but only what is considered a fair price for the assets. Messy and complicated no doubt, but couldn't it ultimately be Hearts best chance of, financially speaking, a fresh start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sked21 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I know it has been mentioned but I think a lot of people would like to change what they think sometimes but stick to the side they have argued before because they are more than likely to be judged others. And I am not just talking about the board itself. For example of you have always been on one side whereas many others are on the other and something happens which makes you argree with the others then sometimes they view you as a sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 If UBIG / UKIO were to go bust, surely someone could then come along and buy one of its subsidiary companies, ie Hearts, from the receivers? In that situation, the buyer would not be obligated to repay to UBIG /UKIO the same figure that they are owed by Hearts, but only what is considered a fair price for the assets. Messy and complicated no doubt, but couldn't it ultimately be Hearts best chance of, financially speaking, a fresh start? Sure. Tynecastle would be more than likely to be sold though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Sure. Tynecastle would be more than likely to be sold though. I would agree Shaun, if UBIG/UKIO were to go out of business I would imagine there would be a stream of creditors each looking for their little bit. In such a scenario you would have to imagine any and all assets would be sold off to keep as many creditors as possible happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I would agree Shaun, if UBIG/UKIO were to go out of business I would imagine there would be a stream of creditors each looking for their little bit. In such a scenario you would have to imagine any and all assets would be sold off to keep as many creditors as possible happy. I think UBIG would look to dispose of assets first in this scenario. Selling HMFC on its own would raise little. Selling HMFC with Tynecastle would raise a lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kennygarland1 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Its having an opinion, and being prepared to stick by it, rather than sit on the fence. Debating football is not about posturing to make sure you end up on the winning side at the end... Id be happy to be proved wrong, but until then, id rather have an opinion to discuss. otherwise we may as well not talk about anything Shhhhhhhhh:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol1874 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I was chatting with another couple of posters about this the other week (they know who they are ) - but you know what I don't get about this place? It's the way so many Kickbackers effectively gamble on the future all the time, by tying themselves to one side of the argument or the other. It's weird. You have those who think Vlad will be the end of us; or those who think he's the best thing to have ever happened to us. Then you have those who think he'll sell pretty soon, and others who believe he's committed for the long haul (not necessarily mutually exclusive positions, to be fair) - and then you have what's happened this week. Is it, as the club have argued, just a technical hitch? Is it just a result of a short-term cashflow issue? Or is it a symptom of a far deeper malaise? The thing is, we don't know - none of us do. And sure, you can attempt to weigh up all the evidence and come to some sort of conclusion; but ultimately, it's all just hearsay and guesswork, isn't it? And I certainly include myself in that too. So why do it? Why make a rod for your own back by making some black-and-white statement at either end of the spectrum when there's no way on earth of knowing if you're right - and when so much secrecy always surrounds the club anyway? I just don't get it. Shaun, I've read enough of your posts to know you do get it. We do it, whether we turn out to be right or wrong, because we love Heart of Midlothian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I think UBIG would look to dispose of assets first in this scenario. Selling HMFC on its own would raise little. Selling HMFC with Tynecastle would raise a lot more. That was what I meant Geoff, although in reading my own post again the way I worded it does make it sound as if it would be more of an afterthought, handled by a third party, than a forethought dealt with UBIG before finally going tits up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 It's the trams fault! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven98 Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Ouch! But as Lord BJ said above, there's a difference between stating an opinion and painting yourself into a corner - not that you're guilty of the latter, in any case. Um...consider me well and truly painted and proud of it, mate. Mad Vald out!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostHunter Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Damn, I need to sort the JKB Subliminal Message Add-On out. It obviously isn't working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 I suppose that's the point Shaun. We all know best! No, We all THINK we know best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3,989
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.