What we need is...

[ELITHEDUG]

a hard midfielder who would be our captain and sort out our slackers as well as booting anybody who wanted to mess with the JT's..a Roy Keane type player...I know they are few and far between but any suggestions?

[Drylaw Hearts]

I'd much prefere a new owner.

[IMA MAROON]

a hard midfielder who would be our captain and sort out our slackers as well as booting anybody who wanted to mess with the JT's..a Roy Keane type player...I know they are few and far between but any suggestions?

 

Mrowiec.

[Guest jambomickey]

I'd much prefere a new owner.

 

i'm 100% with you on that one.

[IMA MAROON]

I'd much prefere a new owner.

 

You steaming?

[Drylaw Hearts]

Mrowiec.

 

Incredible.

 

But predictable.

[hinksikensi]

can't really agree with you here. Don't think thats the position that needs most attention. A striker and maybe new centre back and left back but think we're ok in midfield just now

[Drylaw Hearts]

You steaming?

 

No - why ?

 

I would prefere a new owner !!

[The White Cockade]

Sounds like Michael Stewart to me

[IMA MAROON]

can't really agree with you here. Don't think thats the position that needs most attention. A striker and maybe new centre back and left back but think we're ok in midfield just now

 

I think the OP is right in that we do need that option in the middle of the park.

[hinksikensi]

like manxjamtart says that what Stewart is, basically a dirty ba$tard!

[jkato]

I'd much prefere a new owner.

 

I'm in wholehearted agreement.

[Nucky Thompson]

No - why ?

 

I would prefere a new owner !!

Aye, we seem to want a new one every few years:rolleyes:

[Drylaw Hearts]

Aye, we seem to want a new one every few years:rolleyes:

 

IIRC many Hearts fans wanted a new owner when Mercer had the Club and we obviously wanted a new owner when CPR was in charge.

 

The main reason for wanting a change is bacause the owner cannot take us any further.

 

Whats the difference this time ?

[Charlie-Brown]

IIRC many Hearts fans wanted a new owner when Mercer had the Club and we obviously wanted a new owner when CPR was in charge.

 

The main reason for wanting a change is bacause the owner cannot take us any further.

 

Whats the difference this time ?

 

There was only 1 party (deans & robinson) to buy out mercer & there was only romanov to buy out robinson & deans DH ... maybe some potential new owners will reveal themselves but since Mercer saved the club from bankruptcy there have only been 4 people (Mercer, Robinson. Deans & Romanov) in 27+ years who have been willing to put their money where their mouth is ..... there is nothing wrong with wanting change DH but the truth is at Hearts it simply doesn't happen very often - approx every 10-14 years...I can't say with certainty how long the old board with Bobby Parker & the majority/minority shareholders were in control for in terms of years but Mercer is the first OWNER i can remember....in the same time period Hibs have only had Tom Hart, Duff & Gray, Farmer and that's it....capital clubs don't change hands that often.

[Jambomb]

There was only 1 party (deans & robinson) to buy out mercer & there was only romanov to buy out robinson & deans DH ... maybe some potential new owners will reveal themselves but since Mercer saved the club from bankruptcy there have only been 4 people (Mercer, Robinson. Deans & Romanov) in 27+ years who have been willing to put their money where their mouth is ..... there is nothing wrong with wanting change DH but the truth is at Hearts it simply doesn't happen very often - approx every 10-14 years...I can't say with certainty how long the old board with Bobby Parker & the majority/minority shareholders were in control for in terms of years but Mercer is the first OWNER i can remember....in the same time period Hibs have only had Tom Hart, Duff & Gray, Farmer and that's it....capital clubs don't change hands that often.

 

We'll I think all those that hounded Mercer out probably regretted it during Robinsons time?

Maybe the grass isn't always greener?

[pablo]

Mikey Stewart

[shaun.lawson]

There was only 1 party (deans & robinson) to buy out mercer & there was only romanov to buy out robinson & deans DH ... maybe some potential new owners will reveal themselves but since Mercer saved the club from bankruptcy there have only been 4 people (Mercer, Robinson. Deans & Romanov) in 27+ years who have been willing to put their money where their mouth is ..... there is nothing wrong with wanting change DH but the truth is at Hearts it simply doesn't happen very often - approx every 10-14 years...I can't say with certainty how long the old board with Bobby Parker & the majority/minority shareholders were in control for in terms of years but Mercer is the first OWNER i can remember....in the same time period Hibs have only had Tom Hart, Duff & Gray, Farmer and that's it....capital clubs don't change hands that often.

 

... In which case, someone should pose those in charge the following two questions:

 

1. Do we have a Plan B in case the new stand for whatever reason is not built?

 

2. As no club owner can go on forever, what is Romanov's strategy for ultimately ensuring we are in safe hands when at some point he sells up? Especially if the new stand has not come to fruition?

[shaun.lawson]

We'll I think all those that hounded Mercer out probably regretted it during Robinsons time?

Maybe the grass isn't always greener?

 

For all the good Mercer did, though, we were shrivelling away by his final couple of years, and he'd palpably lost interest. Then Robinson came in, redeveloped much of the stadium, and helped get the monkey off our backs. I don't regret Mercer going, to be honest - and it's worth recalling that many of the problems we faced under CPR were similar to those endured at almost every other SPL club.

 

It woz the SMG deal wot did it: that's the thing I really regret.

[pablo]

[quote name=shaun.lawson;532721

2. As no club owner can go on forever' date=' what is Romanov's strategy for ultimately ensuring we are in safe hands when at some point he sells up? Especially if the new stand has not come to fruition?[/quote]

 

Good question. People tend to think in the short term, especially in a football context.

 

I think ultimately the decision will be taken out of Romanov's hands. There will be some sort of collapse or catasrophe somewhere which will bring down football ownership as we have now. People will still go support a Hearts in whatever guise on account of them not being Hibs.

 

Can't see this lot doing a Jack Walker.

[scott herbertson]

IIRC many Hearts fans wanted a new owner when Mercer had the Club and we obviously wanted a new owner when CPR was in charge.

 

The main reason for wanting a change is bacause the owner cannot take us any further.

 

Whats the difference this time ?

 

 

None

 

There's always a bunch of moaning gits girning about new owners or new managers

 

There's even a few now!

 

The only difference now is you can't get away from them by just walking to another part of the ground

 

[scott herbertson]

... In which case, someone should pose those in charge the following two questions:

 

1. Do we have a Plan B in case the new stand for whatever reason is not built?

 

2. As no club owner can go on forever, what is Romanov's strategy for ultimately ensuring we are in safe hands when at some point he sells up? Especially if the new stand has not come to fruition?

 

1. "we" don't have a plan - we're divided and have little power while we have an absentee owner. However I would guess that Romanov does have a plan, and it's not good for "us". I guess if the stand doesn't go ahead he'll let us rot and squeeze as much cash as he can while spending as little as he can - CO would go and all players of any value would be sold and he would make us suffer until he squeezes someone out of the old stand woodwork who can raise enough to buy him out. Remember Archie Martin?

 

2. I doubt if that has even remotely crossed his mind. Not being a philantrophist I shouldn't think he would even understand the concept 'safe hands' let alone consider passing "us" on in any way without getting the best cash deal he can achieve

[shaun.lawson]

1. "we" don't have a plan - we're divided and have little power while we have an absentee owner. However I would guess that Romanov does have a plan, and it's not good for "us". I guess if the stand doesn't go ahead he'll let us rot and squeeze as much cash as he can while spending as little as he can - CO would go and all players of any value would be sold and he would make us suffer until he squeezes someone out of the old stand woodwork who can raise enough to buy him out. Remember Archie Martin?

 

2. I doubt if that has even remotely crossed his mind. Not being a philantrophist I shouldn't think he would even understand the concept 'safe hands' let alone consider passing "us" on in any way without getting the best cash deal he can achieve

 

In such a scenario though, why wouldn't he just quickly look for a buyer, and get out?

[topcat]

For all the good Mercer did, though, we were shrivelling away by his final couple of years, and he'd palpably lost interest. Then Robinson came in, redeveloped much of the stadium, and helped get the monkey off our backs. I don't regret Mercer going, to be honest - and it's worth recalling that many of the problems we faced under CPR were similar to those endured at almost every other SPL club.

 

It woz the SMG deal wot did it: that's the thing I really regret.

 

The SMG deal was merely the biggest symptom of an overly adventurous strategy that was being pursued at lots of clubs. The failure of ITV Digital and the subsequent bursting of the broadcasting rights bubble hit everybody

Clubs invested in players knowing that, if times became hard, they could always be sold on (in a rising market) to recoup most of the initial outlay. Once the broadcasting money dried up nobody had the money to pay them, never mind buy them.

 

Everybody suffered but it hit clubs who'd been opening the financial throttle too ambitiously on the basis that the boom was going to continue hardest. Leeds United (Champions League Semi finalists around that time) were the ultimate example but Hearts merit a mention in any history of that episode.

[topcat]

None

 

There's always a bunch of moaning gits girning about new owners or new managers

 

There's even a few now!

 

The only difference now is you can't get away from them by just walking to another part of the ground

 

 

That's a far better post than mine

[shaun.lawson]

The SMG deal was merely the biggest symptom of an overly adventurous strategy that was being pursued at lots of clubs. The failure of ITV Digital and the subsequent bursting of the broadcasting rights bubble hit everybody

Clubs invested in players knowing that, if times became hard, they could always be sold on (in a rising market) to recoup most of the initial outlay. Once the broadcasting money dried up nobody had the money to pay them, never mind buy them.

 

Everybody suffered but it hit clubs who'd been opening the financial throttle too ambitiously on the basis that the boom was going to continue hardest. Leeds United (Champions League Semi finalists around that time) were the ultimate example but Hearts merit a mention in any history of that episode.

 

Absolutely. The weird thing about it all was that, in September 1999, it honestly looked as though the dot com and football booms would go on and on - but literally by the end of that very season, the writing was on the wall. If SMG's investment had all been capital, then fine - but it wasn't, and it was absolutely criminal for the board not to have any alternative plan if their loan needed to be repaid, with interest.

[bigwull22]

That's a far better post than mine

 

2 goal scorers, simple

[Francis Albert]

It woz the SMG deal wot did it: that's the thing I really regret.

 

I have asked this lots of times and never got an answer. What was wrong with the SMG deal? We got about ?3m up front and a loan of about ?4m. We frittered away the ?7m and ended up in the ****. But nothing in the SMG deal required us to act so irresponsibly.

[scott herbertson]

I have asked this lots of times and never got an answer. What was wrong with the SMG deal? We got about ?3m up front and a loan of about ?4m. We frittered away the ?7m and ended up in the ****. But nothing in the SMG deal required us to act so irresponsibly.

 

The answer was given by Robinson when the 4 kickbackers met him way back in the early days. He gave JJ a free rein after the Cup final and SMG in the optimistic view that we woul achieve a breakthrough. JJ spent freely onlong term contracts, CR regretted, made gestures at cutting back but was no Petrie and couldn't see it through

[pablo]

I have asked this lots of times and never got an answer. What was wrong with the SMG deal? We got about ?3m up front and a loan of about ?4m. We frittered away the ?7m and ended up in the ****. But nothing in the SMG deal required us to act so irresponsibly.

 

Should have/could have made the money work harder. Why didn't Jimbo know what he had to play with and why was it sanctioned? One minute it's 3 big ones for players, then it's " oh that includes signing on fees of current players and wages " next it's Fitzroy Simpson and the ring fenced academy money is spunked. Sheer incompetence from then on in.

[Francis Albert]

The answer was given by Robinson when the 4 kickbackers met him way back in the early days. He gave JJ a free rein after the Cup final and SMG in the optimistic view that we woul achieve a breakthrough. JJ spent freely onlong term contracts, CR regretted, made gestures at cutting back but was no Petrie and couldn't see it through

 

That doesn't really answer the question - what was wrong with the SMG deal? Did SMG insist that CPR let JJ squandor the ?7m?

[scott herbertson]

In such a scenario though, why wouldn't he just quickly look for a buyer, and get out?

 

because the scenario i am describing is one of total desperation - we're not there yet.

 

No buyer woudl pay the price today (I would guess the debt with UBIG being paid off and Romanov gettign value for his shares - plus any new owner would have to take on the debt (liek Mercer did to deans and Robinson on a smaller scale)

 

The scenario is Vr would take even more out of the club, everything saleable, we'd scream and shout and wail and the one's amongst us who have some money would have the cohoice of seeing the club go to the adminstrator and hoping they win the battle to get the registration and remaining assets or do a deal with VR.

 

It's the call my bluff scenario and I've seen it done here with Kingstonian. It's not pleasant hence I am still in the 'stick with the plan' camp, even if the plan's chances of success are getting smaller.

 

Plan B is HOMST / SOH 2 in my opinion, with even less chance of success

[shaun.lawson]

Should have/could have made the money work harder. Why didn't Jimbo know what he had to play with and why was it sanctioned? One minute it's 3 big ones for players, then it's " oh that includes signing on fees of current players and wages " next it's Fitzroy Simpson and the ring fenced academy money is spunked. Sheer incompetence from then on in.

 

Exactly.

[scott herbertson]

That doesn't really answer the question - what was wrong with the SMG deal? Did SMG insist that CPR let JJ squandor the ?7m?

 

Sorry FA - I was answering the question: why did we squander it?

 

I agree with you that dealt with wisely it would have been a good deal

[Francis Albert]

Sorry FA - I was answering the question: why did we squander it?

 

I agree with you that dealt with wisely it would have been a good deal

 

OK - sorry. Misread,

[shaun.lawson]

That doesn't really answer the question - what was wrong with the SMG deal? Did SMG insist that CPR let JJ squandor the ?7m?

 

Here's what I think was wrong:

 

1. As a PLC, we had to publicly announce the investment - and the fine print of over half of it being in the form of a loan was largely glossed over in the media. This immediately drove up players' wage demands, and meant other clubs and agents wanted way over the odds.

 

2. Which meant the portion provided for players didn't go anywhere near as far as we thought. Meanwhile, I'm sceptical SMG would've invested at all if they hadn't bought into wildly optimistic projections about the difference it would make to our league position, and especially to gates.

 

3. What's interesting is the way the goalposts started to be moved around Christmas time. Hearts were drifting badly in the league for a variety of reasons, and the directors met at Houston House to plot the longer term future. What was crucial was the decision to ringfence so much for the academy: in truth, we actually shouldn't have spent a bean on players, and merely put the capital towards the academy, keeping the loan in reserve.

 

But the situation - an ambitious manager, fans hungry for success, a club which kept talking about going to the 'next level', meant we spent on players as well. Throughout history, hard economics have often been subordinate to political reality on the ground - and there'd have been a riot had CR not made anything available for players.

 

And, to repeat the point above, would SMG themselves have made the investment with no prospect of short-term impact? I doubt it. So it was that we spunked it all away in no time, yet still owed them effectively ?7m. Madness.

[Jambomb]

For all the good Mercer did, though, we were shrivelling away by his final couple of years, and he'd palpably lost interest. Then Robinson came in, redeveloped much of the stadium, and helped get the monkey off our backs. I don't regret Mercer going, to be honest - and it's worth recalling that many of the problems we faced under CPR were similar to those endured at almost every other SPL club.

 

It woz the SMG deal wot did it: that's the thing I really regret.

 

Mercer started the stadium redevelopment, robinson just took the credit.

[Francis Albert]

Here's what I think was wrong:

 

1. As a PLC, we had to publicly announce the investment - and the fine print of over half of it being in the form of a loan was largely glossed over in the media. This immediately drove up players' wage demands, and meant other clubs and agents wanted way over the odds.

 

2. Which meant the portion provided for players didn't go anywhere near as far as we thought. Meanwhile, I'm sceptical SMG would've invested at all if they hadn't bought into wildly optimistic projections about the difference it would make to our league position, and especially to gates.

 

3. What's interesting is the way the goalposts started to be moved around Christmas time. Hearts were drifting badly in the league for a variety of reasons, and the directors met at Houston House to plot the longer term future. What was crucial was the decision to ringfence so much for the academy: in truth, we actually shouldn't have spent a bean on players, and merely put the capital towards the academy, keeping the loan in reserve.

 

But the situation - an ambitious manager, fans hungry for success, a club which kept talking about going to the 'next level', meant we spent on players as well. Throughout history, hard economics have often been subordinate to political reality on the ground - and there'd have been a riot had CR not made anything available for players.

 

And, to repeat the point above, would SMG themselves have made the investment with no prospect of short-term impact? I doubt it. So it was that we spunked it all away in no time, yet still owed them effectively ?7m. Madness.

 

Sorry. Still don't see why the deal with SMG forced us into this "madness".

[shaun.lawson]

Sorry. Still don't see why the deal with SMG forced us into this "madness".

 

It didn't necessarily. But Andrew Flanagan was part of the decision making process too, the squad needed strengthening, gates would surely have fallen had we not done so (meaning more financial problems); and we still had an academy to build too. As I've said, would the fans have tolerated it had we not spent anything on players?

 

Here's an interesting take on things from just after JJ left. I think the writer's quite right, to be honest:

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_/ai_n13953299?tag=artBody;col1

[topcat]

2. Which meant the portion provided for players didn't go anywhere near as far as we thought. Meanwhile, I'm sceptical SMG would've invested at all if they hadn't bought into wildly optimistic projections about the difference it would make to our league position, and especially to gates.

 

If they had bought into those projections fully then they could have sold them 100% stock as opposed to convertible loan stock.

 

For other readers

 

convertible loan meant that SMG bought the right to either take up either own shares or Hearts Debt after a set period. This meant, in essence, that they couldn't lose. If the share gained value they'd take a profit, if they didn't then Hearts had to pay them their stake back.

 

It meant that SMG brought in the capital but Hearts took all the risk.

 

Somebody more sober than me might be able to explain it better

[Francis Albert]

It didn't necessarily. But Andrew Flanagan was part of the decision making process too, the squad needed strengthening, gates would surely have fallen had we not done so (meaning more financial problems); and we still had an academy to build too. As I've said, would the fans have tolerated it had we not spent anything on players?

 

Here's an interesting take on things from just after JJ left. I think the writer's quite right, to be honest:

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_/ai_n13953299?tag=artBody;col1

 

So we succumbed to the usual pressure to spend more than we could afford.

 

The SMG deal may have given us the opportunity but I still don't see why it was to blame.

[shaun.lawson]

If they had bought into those projections fully then they could have sold them 100% stock as opposed to convertible loan stock.

 

For other readers

 

convertible loan meant that SMG bought the right to either take up either own shares or Hearts Debt after a set period. This meant, in essence, that they couldn't lose. If the share gained value they'd take a profit, if they didn't then Hearts had to pay them their stake back.

 

It meant that SMG brought in the capital but Hearts took all the risk.

 

Somebody more sober than me might be able to explain it better

 

They took a punt on us, basically - but like any company, wanted to hedge their risk too (which begs the question: why the hell didn't we?). And I think Robinson was particularly keen to bite their hands off and ignore the small print because he was desperate to head off Deans and McGrail, who'd also been busy that summer organising a bid to take control. Not for the first time, I'd say the personal animosity between CR and LD played a huge role in our whole future.

[shaun.lawson]

So we succumbed to the usual pressure to spend more than we could afford.

 

The SMG deal may have given us the opportunity but I still don't see why it was to blame.

 

It was also pressure which every other club in the SPL with the possible exception of St Johnstone had succumbed to. So had we lived within our means (and how could we, in an inflationary post-Bosman world in which most of our players wanted rises?), we'd have actually fallen further behind, meaning falling gates, rising discontent, and less revenue. Don't you think part of SMG's conditions for investing would've been a major say in how the money was spent - and hence, they were equally responsible for so much of it going on players?

[Francis Albert]

If they had bought into those projections fully then they could have sold them 100% stock as opposed to convertible loan stock.

 

For other readers

 

convertible loan meant that SMG bought the right to either take up either own shares or Hearts Debt after a set period. This meant, in essence, that they couldn't lose. If the share gained value they'd take a profit, if they didn't then Hearts had to pay them their stake back.

 

It meant that SMG brought in the capital but Hearts took all the risk.

 

Somebody more sober than me might be able to explain it better

 

But didn't SMG in the end have to accept a loss? I don't think they got their full investment back.

[topcat]

So we succumbed to the usual pressure to spend more than we could afford.

 

The SMG deal may have given us the opportunity but I still don't see why it was to blame.

 

It essentially allowed Hearts to run up what would turn out to be more debt without it actually being debt until the time came when SMG decided not to take up the shares.

 

The SMG deal wasn't too blame for Hearts spending more than it could afford.

 

The SMG deal was Hearts spending more than it could afford.

[pablo]

So we succumbed to the usual pressure to spend more than we could afford.

 

The SMG deal may have given us the opportunity but I still don't see why it was to blame.

 

Blame for what? and who to blame?

[Francis Albert]

It was also pressure which every other club in the SPL with the possible exception of St Johnstone had succumbed to. So had we lived within our means (and how could we, in an inflationary post-Bosman world in which most of our players wanted rises?), we'd have actually fallen further behind, meaning falling gates, rising discontent, and less revenue. Don't you think part of SMG's conditions for investing would've been a major say in how the money was spent - and hence, they were equally responsible for so much of it going on players?

 

I rea;lly doubt that SMG made it a condition of the deal that we spent ?xm on players unwisely.

[shaun.lawson]

I rea;lly doubt that SMG made it a condition of the deal that we spent ?xm on players unwisely.

 

You don't think they'd have been looking for a short-term impact? But what everyone underestimated was the way the announcement drove up the demands of players and agents everywhere, pricing us out of all the players we thought we'd be able to go for.

[shaun.lawson]

3.12.00 - As Chief Executive of SMG, Hearts' largest shareholder and only corporate investor, I've watched and listened with great interest to the debate which has raged since well before the decision three weeks ago to change the football management team. There's no doubt that, with feelings running high, much of what's been said is sincerely felt. I can't help but recognise that most of the frustration expressed by real Hearts supporters comes from a genuine passion for the club. But I also believe that a great deal of what's been reported in the press is misguided, mostly misdirected and, in some cases, misleading.

 

Let me state for the record that if I believed SMG's ?8 million investment was being mishandled in any way, then I would take action. I don't. If I believed that Heart of Midlothian plc was being mismanaged, then as a director of the company, I would speak up. I don't. What I do believe is this:

 

Hearts have, for many years, invested in players beyond the Club's day to day means. This strategy depended on periodically selling players - a high risk plan but one which initially resulted in success.

 

Much has been said in recent weeks about the fortunes of Hearts since the 1998 Scottish Cup win. Great days for Hearts with the Cup win and 3rd place in the League. It promised a great deal but delivered much less. The risks of buying success and reaping the rewards relied on supporters coming out in ever increasing numbers to watch a new, exciting, cosmopolitan Hearts. It didn't happen. Inevitably, the players who had done so well sought to capitalise on their great season and contract negotiations pushed the Club's wage bill ever higher.

 

Ironically, Scottish players and their agents then began to take full advantage of the opportunities of the Bosman ruling - the same ruling which has allowed Hearts to make successful signings. Players could either re-negotiate mid-term or sit out their contracts, then achieve a strengthened bargaining position from which to springboard to a bigger club.

 

So on top of seeing revenue increase following the Cup win, the Club were also increasingly unable to balance the cost of the player pool with the sale of players. Hearts, however, are no different to many other SPL clubs - and the same is true today. Wage inflation is overtaking income growth and with the Bosman ruling there are no easy ways to make ends meet.

 

Why then did SMG invest in Hearts? The reasons we gave back then still hold good today. Hearts stand out in Scottish football. The largest club in Scotland's capital city with the capability to challenge domestically and in Europe. The Hearts name has the potential to be marketed beyond Edinburgh and in SMG there is a natural media partner.

 

Yes, we believed along with the Hearts Board - and, it has to be said, most of the supporters - that by investing in the playing side once more, we could create success on the field which could be converted into longer cup-runs, a stronger League position and a passport to Europe. Depending on your measure, last season could be viewed as a success for Hearts. But although we qualified for Europe, we didn't have good cup runs and, once again, new fans failed to materialise. Nor did we benefit from the hoped for increase in TV revenue.

 

The speculate to accumulate business model at Hearts has been well and truly tested and, despite the protestations of those who want to undermine the management team at Hearts, there's nothing to be gained from throwing blame around. Didn't the players try hard enough? Did Jim Jefferies make the right buying decisions? Did Chris Robinson give him the support he needed? What happened to the 100,000 who welcomed the team back after the Scottish Cup win? It doesn't matter. What matters now is the future.

 

Clearly, we have to balance the books. The cost of players has to be brought in line with what the Club earns. And yes, this will mean cut backs in the playing pool, but in conjunction with the wishes and judgement of the new coach. He needs to know that the Club, its available resources and the supporters are behind him 100 per cent. He needs to be allowed to concentrate on the playing side, insulated from the business side of Hearts. But it has to be said that, even with a cut back in player costs Hearts are likely to still have the best squad outside the Old Firm.

 

Core to our investment - and, I believe, to the long-term success of Hearts - is a shared belief in the key strength that Hearts has in the Club's ability to identify and develop young talent. That's why we've ring-fenced a large part of our ?8 million for a youth academy.

 

Hearts can, and will regain their place in Scotland's top three. The determination and passion within the Club, matched by the support on the terracing is a potent mixture. It won't happen in an instant, there'll be stumbles along the way and the rewards of the Club's youth policy will be longer term still. There are tough decisions to be faced, not all of which will please everyone. There will be those, chasing their own agendas, who will want to whip up every unpopular decision into a lather of discontent.

 

But now is the real test of the Club's ability to bounce back. Now is the real test of the loyalty to Hearts of those who've focused their frustration on Chris Robinson.

 

As the club's biggest shareholder, I pledge SMG's continued support for Hearts. Let's all get behind everyone at the Club and help get Hearts back where they belong.

 

Andrew Flanagan

Chief Executive, SMG plc

Director, Heart of Midlothian plc

[topcat]

But didn't SMG in the end have to accept a loss? I don't think they got their full investment back.

 

I don't know that for sure but it's widely thought that as part of the takeover UBIG were able to get a discount on clearing Hearts debts with HBOS and SMG who would both have been glad to get what was looking more and more like a bad debt off their books.

 

However, It's unlikely to be anything like the huge markdown that they'd have took on buying normal shares at around a pound only for the takeover to go at about 35p (You'll have to look up the precise prices)

 

So in the long run SMG probably did get their hands singed but not burnt