redm Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Apologies if this has already been posted somewhere but couldn't spot a related thread so here you go... http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=s2&newsid=7237 The Board today agreed to press ahead with plans to introduce additional financial controls into the membership criteria of the SPL. At the SPL Strategy Day in June 2008 the Chairman proposed that a working group be set up to develop financial criteria which may be applied to member clubs. With that work complete, a recommended approach will now be put to the clubs in January. Iain Blair, Company Secretary of the SPL, said: "The new criteria will require all member clubs to provide additional financial information to the SPL prior to each season. "No system of this nature is foolproof but our aim is to ensure that all our clubs have the financial stability needed to complete any given season." Okay, not entirely unexpected...but what sort of financial information exactly? And what will these criteria be? And...um....should we be worried? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Somehow I don't think this should or will concer us. If,for example clubs were asked to verify capital, or access to funds, I'd think Hearts could do so easily supported by a bank which also sponsors us. I'd imagine other clubs may be more worried about this than us. If, however, we were still under the control of CPR with our huge debt to BOS (HBOS) I'd be extremely worried about our longevity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Apologies if this has already been posted somewhere but couldn't spot a related thread so here you go... http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=s2&newsid=7237 Okay, not entirely unexpected...but what sort of financial information exactly? And what will these criteria be? And...um....should we be worried? Guess who will be monkey spanking at this? As for 'worry'? No. Anything that increases financial transparency at football clubs is welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 Maybe...yes...I like to think that this has come about more as a reaction to the Gretna situation more than anything concerning Hearts (and I'm sure it does!) but I can't imagine what it is that they're going to ask for. Maybe some sort of financial promise with guarantors or something? I don't know.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 Guess who will be monkey spanking at this? As for 'worry'? No. Anything that increases financial transparency at football clubs is welcome. Indeed, although that's not to say that any of the information will be shared with us plebs... As for monkey spanking, I did think twice about posting this but hey, I'm a charitable sort. It's nice to see the hobos smile once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Maybe...yes...I like to think that this has come about more as a reaction to the Gretna situation more than anything concerning Hearts (and I'm sure it does!) but I can't imagine what it is that they're going to ask for. Maybe some sort of financial promise with guarantors or something? I don't know.... That's all I'm sure this is. SPL: "Can you guarantee you have funds in place for the season ahead?" Vlad: "Look at my wad! Look at my wad!" Case closed. Nowt to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 That's all I'm sure this is. SPL: "Can you guarantee you have funds in place for the season ahead?" Vlad: "Look at my wad! Look at my wad!" Case closed. Nowt to worry about. I'm trying to imagine a club being asked the question and not saying yes. Are the clubs word to be taken on trust, and how would the SPL prove that the reverse actually applies if they didn't believe a particular club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I think this is to avoid a repeat of the Gretna scenario where a small club didn't really have any bank/loan facilities in place to enable them to meet costs but instead survived of the subsidy handout of their rich benefactor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I think we could be in the poop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I think this is to avoid a repeat of the Gretna scenario where a small club didn't really have any bank/loan facilities in place to enable them to meet costs but instead survived of the subsidy handout of their rich benefactor. Is there not more than one club in the SPL who falls into that category though CB, in fact most clubs I would think are dependent on probably one person for finance and would struggle if in each case their major benefactor pulled out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Rangers have incurred the biggest deficits & losses in the last decade, they also have repeatedly high debt levels despite a massive capital injection although very few of the other SPL clubs have been managed that well financially in the last decade and it's only in the last 3 or 4 years that most have started to put their house in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Is there not more than one club in the SPL who falls into that category though CB, in fact most clubs I would think are dependent on probably one person for finance and would struggle if in each case their major benefactor pulled out. Yes that's true but Gretna proportionately were by far the most obvious example especially when in the SPL their income less rental fee for Fir Park left them with very little real income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I'm trying to imagine a club being asked the question and not saying yes. Are the clubs word to be taken on trust, and how would the SPL prove that the reverse actually applies if they didn't believe a particular club. I agree. But as CB says, the Gretna situation was particularly irregular: they had no budget at all I believe, and all Brooks would do was just sign cheques for x amount each month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I think we could be in the poop You think whatever you judge to be the contrary position at any particular moment. Many people have you pegged as a uniformly negative poster, but I disagree. You merely adopt the alternative position just for the hell of it; and when Kickback is broadly agreed on something, that's when you come into your own, and post ridiculously extreme and inappropriate stuff. I doubt whether you even believe a lot of what you write, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 You think whatever you judge to be the contrary position at any particular moment. Many people have you pegged as a uniformly negative poster, but I disagree. You merely adopt the alternative position just for the hell of it; and when Kickback is broadly agreed on something, that's when you come into your own, and post ridiculously extreme and inappropriate stuff. I doubt whether you even believe a lot of what you write, though. Oh no, he doesn't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I agree. But as CB says, the Gretna situation was particularly irregular: they had no budget at all I believe, and all Brooks would do was just sign cheques for x amount each month. I just find it all a bit bizarre because I really cannot imagine any club answering the question you pose above no. And I would imagine at all clubs someone is signing cheques to release cash, I think in Gretna's case the problem only really arose after Mileson became ill, as well as being posed the finance question will the Board of Directors also have to get a health screening at the commencement of each season. Although I suppose they could put a generic question on the form they issue asking "Do you plan on dying within the next 8 to 9 months". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 You think whatever you judge to be the contrary position at any particular moment. Many people have you pegged as a uniformly negative poster, but I disagree. You merely adopt the alternative position just for the hell of it; and when Kickback is broadly agreed on something, that's when you come into your own, and post ridiculously extreme and inappropriate stuff. I doubt whether you even believe a lot of what you write, though. Au contraire Blackadder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I just find it all a bit bizarre because I really cannot imagine any club answering the question you pose above no. And I would imagine at all clubs someone is signing cheques to release cash, I think in Gretna's case the problem only really arose after Mileson became ill, as well as being posed the finance question will the Board of Directors also have to get a health screening at the commencement of each season. Although I suppose they could put a generic question on the form they issue asking "Do you plan on dying within the next 8 to 9 months". Or you could at least ask whether someone else has power of attorney should the benefactor become indisposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Or you could at least ask whether someone else has power of attorney should the benefactor become indisposed. I did - back in March! http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/157937-post169.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I did - back in March! http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/157937-post169.html Indeed - and it's been talked about for years prior to that, with nothing apparently materialising. I meant that with reference to the Gretna situation to be honest, but it could be something to be concerned about in our case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Hearts have loans & banking facilities provided by Ukio Bankas and also are owned by UBIG - these organisations are legally independant and operate under their own steam - if Vladimir took ill or died then it's not as if Hearts get cheques from his own personal account - he might be the ultimate guarantor of the finance these organisations provide to Hearts but we would still have a legal business relationship with these companies although whether they would be as sympathetic and supportive is of course up for debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Hearts have loans & banking facilities provided by Ukio Bankas and also are owned by UBIG - these organisations are legally independant and operate under their own steam - if Vladimir took ill or died then it's not as if Hearts get cheques from his own personal account - he might be the ultimate guarantor of the finance these organisations provide to Hearts but we would still have a legal business relationship with these companies although whether they would be as sympathetic and supportive is of course up for debate? That's entirely the question, Charlie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H.A.N.S Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 That's all I'm sure this is. SPL: "Can you guarantee you have funds in place for the season ahead?" Vlad: "Look at my wad! Look at my wad!" Case closed. Nowt to worry about. I'd like to see this "wad" to see if it exists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 I'd like to see this "wad" to see if it exists Me too! But UBIG's assets could serve as a guarantee, I'd imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 That's entirely the question, Charlie. The same applies to many SPL clubs Shaun - would HBOS or RBS be as sympathetic to Aberdeen with out Mile, Hibs without Farmer, Rangers without Murray etc....the biggest part of the reason that the banks are prepared to give our clubs any money at all are the personal guarantees these guys provide..in days of yore it was Mercer's house that was on the line on more than one occassion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H.A.N.S Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Me too! But UBIG's assets could serve as a guarantee, I'd imagine. Wonder what % of their tangible assets is the mega debt we are due them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 The same applies to many SPL clubs Shaun - would HBOS or RBS be as sympathetic to Aberdeen with out Mile, Hibs without Farmer, Rangers without Murray etc....the biggest part of the reason that the banks are prepared to give our clubs any money at all are the personal guarantees these guys provide..in days of yore it was Mercer's house that was on the line on more than one occassion! ..and a primary reason why HBOS were foreclosing on CPR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 The same applies to many SPL clubs Shaun - would HBOS or RBS be as sympathetic to Aberdeen with out Mile, Hibs without Farmer, Rangers without Murray etc....the biggest part of the reason that the banks are prepared to give our clubs any money at all are the personal guarantees these guys provide..in days of yore it was Mercer's house that was on the line on more than one occassion! Yes, it does - but people are naturally more sceptical about an organisation we know very little about, eg. UBIG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 ..and a primary reason why HBOS were foreclosing on CPR. I found this online the other day, Iain. Click on the link midway down the page, and listen to his answer to the final question he's asked: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/439517.stm Idiot! (Him, not you, I mean). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Yes, it does - but people are naturally more sceptical about an organisation we know very little about, eg. UBIG. We probably know more about UBIG than we ever did about Heritage Portfolio, Beetroot Blue or indeed HBOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted November 21, 2008 Author Share Posted November 21, 2008 Or you could at least ask whether someone else has power of attorney should the benefactor become indisposed. It's impossible to predict whether or not we're in the crap without knowing what it is that they want from this financial info but the one thing that might be great is if it pushes resolution to this question. I doubt that Rodney will find it quite as easy to laugh in the faces of the SFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 I found this online the other day, Iain. Click on the link midway down the page, and listen to his answer to the final question he's asked: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/439517.stm Idiot! (Him, not you, I mean). Incredible but not uncommon for him! He positions Hearts under his stewardship (sic) as a "strong and well run business" Hearing his voice again and seeing names such as Flannagan & Archer still makes my skin crawl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 We probably know more about UBIG than we ever did about Heritage Portfolio, Beetroot Blue or indeed HBOS. Really? Many on here still blame HBOS to some degree for calling in the loans - but actually, it was obvious for years prior to that that the moment SMG's loan fell due for repayment, we'd be in the ****. The accounts were clear about that November 2003 deadline from the outset, which was about the only advantage of being a PLC: now, things are a lot foggier, I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Incredible but not uncommon for him! He positions Hearts under his stewardship (sic) as a "strong and well run business" Hearing his voice again and seeing names such as Flannagan & Archer still makes my skin crawl. Indeed. NIT immediately asked questions about the deal; so did Jim Traynor. But Robinson was utterly complacent (I've always believed because he had satisfied a personal grudge by trumping Deans' efforts to buy him out), and doesn't appear to have considered a single downside at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Indeed. NIT immediately asked questions about the deal; so did Jim Traynor. But Robinson was utterly complacent (I've always believed because he had satisfied a personal grudge by trumping Deans' efforts to buy him out), and doesn't appear to have considered a single downside at all! The SMG deal was a good one in terms of the cash they gifted. However, having nothing in place to repay the 'loan' was a tad irresponsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Ersing all the SMG cash was more than a tad irresponsible as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 The SMG deal was a good one in terms of the cash they gifted. However, having nothing in place to repay the 'loan' was a tad irresponsible. The plans for the academy were announced in February 2000, only five months after the deal - when we'd already spunked millions on Niemi, Tomaschek, Petric, Simpson and renewing contracts such as Adam's and Rousset's. That's just incredible to me: it meant the money had already been spent, even though the majority was in the form of a loan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Ersing all the SMG cash was more than a tad irresponsible as well. I accept it wasn't used to its maximum potential. Only Niemi was a sound investment. Most cash windfalls aren't - trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Really? Many on here still blame HBOS to some degree for calling in the loans - but actually, it was obvious for years prior to that that the moment SMG's loan fell due for repayment, we'd be in the ****. The accounts were clear about that November 2003 deadline from the outset, which was about the only advantage of being a PLC: now, things are a lot foggier, I'd say. Yes really. None of the 3 companies I mentioned had a sad & twisted loser combing the interweb and twisting/ posting absolute bollocks about them, as far as I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Yes really. None of the 3 companies I mentioned had a sad & twisted loser combing the interweb and twisting/ posting absolute bollocks about them, as far as I know. Fair point, well made! But maybe all those companies were somehow more transparent, trusted or at least better known in the UK. UBIG are many things, and transparent certainly isn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Who are beetroot blue or heritage portfolio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Who are beetroot blue or heritage portfolio? He's not called The Pie-Man for nothing. QED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 I remember Wheatsheaf catering....I assume those were his later ventures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 I remember Wheatsheaf catering....I assume those were his later ventures? Think he sold Wheatsheaf and these were his 2 reinventions. Both companies were about to suffer serious disruption to their (then) current and most definitely future weddings / events business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 He's not called The Pie-Man for nothing. QED. Even the Daily ****** called him that the other week! Gotta love Scottish journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 The question has to be Who wasted more of hearts cash, pieman or romanov? Im going for romanov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbump Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 The question has to be Who wasted more of hearts cash, pieman or romanov? Im going for romanov That thieving **** the pieman, without a shadow of doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Really? When pieman left we were circa 20 mil in debt, for that we had to show regular european football, being the undisputed 3rd force in scottish football, a top manager, some very good youth prospects,a long term lease on a football academy and the land/stadium. Yes he wasted cash too, but what football club wasnt losing money? Now Romanov has spent approximately the same? what do we have to show for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Pieman or Romanov? Very little difference between the two. Both overspend and underacheive. Both won a cup. Romanov has bigger credit facilities to be capable of running our debts a bit higher than Pieman did, but he too will have his limits. At least Pieman is a Hearts supporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Surely there is teams bigger than us who would be concerned if we are. You know tens of millions of debt, rich benefactor. Wonder if this would affect them:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.