Devries4 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 The smokies want to freeze our gate receipts now http://www.theherald.co.uk/sport/headlines/display.var.2472795.0.Arbroath_seek_SFA_help_with_Hearts_row.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chat Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 What a frigging embarrassment that still is still dragging on. Its only 14 fecking grand. Just get it paid Hearts FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Im1874 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 To be honest I don't blame Arbroath. Like previous poster said its only14k ffs just pay it and it will be one less embarassing story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTBCAL Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Don't tell it's because we are skint - personally I think that someone at Hearts is just being downright awkward - an absolute joke. Not good enough Hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djg001 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I guess its the principle. Hearts got nothing for him.. therefore why should Hearts pay Arbroath anything. As much as I sympathise, it is Webster/Wigan/Rangers who should cough up the cash... but that will never happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionDJambo Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 We didn't get a transfer fee, just compensation from Webster himself for breaking his contract, so we should not have been due anything. But we agreed to give Arbroath some cash, probably because the original agreement was not set up properly due to nobody imagining such a situation would occur. Not a fortune to us but probably to them. We should just pay it now and stop allowing the Weegie rags to try to undermine our current form and progress. Maybe we should have offered them a friendly match to generate some cash if we didn't want to part with any ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavePDQ Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I'm keeping out of this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I'm keeping out of this one I'm not. Technically we didn't receive a transfer fee for Webster as such, but the idea of the original agreement was that we would pass on a percentage of money recouped when Webster left us. We received a paltry amount from the tribunal but if we're going to be gentlemen about it then a percentage of that needs to be passed on to Arbroath. In addition we came out and promised them the money. We should therefore release this money now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighalders Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 No we didn't get a transfer fee but YES we agreed to pay Arbroath but didn't. So we don't pay Arbroath ?14k, we don't pay the players on time twice, we have had court action threatened against us on numerous occasions. But all is ok, Vlad is king, nothing to see here according to many of the believers that still exist on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I'm keeping out of this one Well, well that makes a change - you in your short time here usually relish this sort of thread. Trying to portray your self in another light are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I think it's great that we're refusing to pay the 14k, even though we agreed to pay it, and even claimed that arbroath will "shortly recieve their slice of the money owed" way back on 22 April. Well done all concerned at HMFC on this excellent work in keeping the 14k at Tynie and preventing those smokey ****bags at Arbroath getting their hands on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Did we not have people claiming this was paid a few weeks ago and thus was a non story? I also have to love the amatuer lawyers who are saying we owe them nothing, because we didnt get a fee, firstly hearts wrote on our own website we owed them it and were settling it soon, oh what 6 months ago. Secondly your average lawyer is not stupid, there is no way the contract states % of a fee, its too restrictive. Its far more likely to say a % of any future commercial benefits due to the movement of andy websters contract rights thus ensuring arbroath get what their due. Otherwise we could have just bumped them by getting non cash alternatives. We owe them, pay up, its embarassing, I dont know how anyone can honestly claim they dont think we have cash flow problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Tell Arbroath to wait till January and we've sold Kingston for squillions! Does this remind people of Addison and Pettigrew and monies owed to Dundee United? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Tell Arbroath to wait till January and we've sold Kingston for squillions! Does this remind people of Addison and Pettigrew and monies owed to Dundee United? Sadly your spot on I suspect and that come January we will be desperate for a fee, not doing our negotiating position much good. Gordon's injury appears to have hampered us too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 We've are showing a complete lack of respect for a fellow Scottish club. This has gone on long enough - I hope they take us all the way. We cannot treat clubs in this manner - we'd all be quick to have a go if it was Hearts who were being denied the money from Wigan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 We only have one home gate before the transfer window so from that perspective, it won't work practically. That said, a transfer ban won't be good although it doesn't extend to loan players IIRC. Guess what that would mean... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 We only have one home gate before the transfer window so from that perspective, it won't work practically. That said, a transfer ban won't be good although it doesn't extend to loan players IIRC. Guess what that would mean... Could you imagine the media/OF/SFA outcry if we got a transfer ban slapped on us and Kaunas then proceeded to sign half a dozen decent players then loan them to us. It would almost be worth the ban to see their reaction:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werwolf Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Could you imagine the media/OF/SFA outcry if we got a transfer ban slapped on us and Kaunas then proceeded to sign half a dozen decent players then loan them to us. It would almost be worth the ban to see their reaction:p I really like that idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest S.U.S.S. Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 A poor show by Hearts true, but on a positive not, Websters career is ****ed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 The GFA have not said anything on this matter - why? Arbroath are chasing the money through the media - why? There is more to this than simply us not paying a bill and the GFA seem loath to use their powers, as do the SPL, UEFA, FIFA... Should Hearts do as many "embarassed" posters suggest and just give 14 measly grand "!" to Arbroath? - why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 The GFA have not said anything on this matter - why? Have arbroath officially approached them yet? Arbroath are chasing the money through the media - why? Hopeing to embarrass us into paying what we said we'd pay? There is more to this than simply us not paying a bill and the GFA seem loath to use their powers, as do the SPL, UEFA, FIFA... Then why did Hearts admit we owed them the money, and promise to pay up shortly? Should Hearts do as many "embarassed" posters suggest and just give 14 measly grand "!" to Arbroath? - why? IMO, we should pay up because we admitted we owed them the money, and that we'd received our money from Wigan already, and promised to pay up shortly, all of which happened over 6 months ago? http://www.heartsfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/HeartsNewsDetail/0,,10289~1295795,00.html If we feel the situation has changed and we're now not going to pay up, we should at least update people that our view has changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 The GFA have not said anything on this matter - why? Arbroath are chasing the money through the media - why? There is more to this than simply us not paying a bill and the GFA seem loath to use their powers, as do the SPL, UEFA, FIFA... Should Hearts do as many "embarassed" posters suggest and just give 14 measly grand "!" to Arbroath? - why? Was it not established that we werent actually "due" them anything, but we had chosen to out of principle? Or am I making that up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambojambo Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 We didn't get a transfer fee, just compensation from Webster himself for breaking his contract, so we should not have been due anything. But we agreed to give Arbroath some cash, probably because the original agreement was not set up properly due to nobody imagining such a situation would occur. Not a fortune to us but probably to them.We should just pay it now and stop allowing the Weegie rags to try to undermine our current form and progress.Maybe we should have offered them a friendly match to generate some cash if we didn't want to part with any ourselves. NOTHING will stop that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 A poor show by Hearts true, but on a positive not, Websters career is ****ed! Every cloud and that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 NOTHING will stop that! In all honesty we give them some serious ammo. Lets at least make it hard for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devries4 Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 the link to the hearts website above doesn't actually say what the slice is. It could be that a slice of nothing is nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 the link to the hearts website above doesn't actually say what the slice is. It could be that a slice of nothing is nothing. it says the slice is 26k. (% of 160k) Arbroath have since agreed to only 14k. (% of 160k-75k we paid to Arbroath in the first place). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 No we didn't get a transfer fee but YES we agreed to pay Arbroath but didn't. So we don't pay Arbroath ?14k, we don't pay the players on time twice, we have had court action threatened against us on numerous occasions. But all is ok, Vlad is king, nothing to see here according to many of the believers that still exist on here Vlad doesn't have any "believers" left on here, but there are those of us who would rather talk about the positive things happening on the park, rather than spend allday worrying about whats going on off it. Thats not to say the rest of us are not concerned or don't care about it, but theres plenty of good folk like yourselve writing enough negative threads for the rest of us. Thank you for all your hard work, "we" appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devries4 Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 it says the slice is 26k. (% of 160k) Arbroath have since agreed to only 14k. (% of 160k-75k we paid to Arbroath in the first place). They are due 26k as part of sell on clause. He wasn't sold on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 They are due 26k as part of sell on clause. He wasn't sold on. So, when Hearts say "The third division side is due ?26,000 courtesy of a sell-on clause" what we actually mean is "He wasn't sold on" and we don't owe them anything? okay doke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syd Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I think it's great that we're refusing to pay the 14k, even though we agreed to pay it, and even claimed that arbroath will "shortly recieve their slice of the money owed" way back on 22 April. Well done all concerned at HMFC on this excellent work in keeping the 14k at Tynie and preventing those smokey ****bags at Arbroath getting their hands on it. You are joking right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 They are due 26k as part of sell on clause. He wasn't sold on. And you will be producing the text of said clause to back up your argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I think this is the first reference I've seen to ?14k. So maybe the assumption last time this was a hot topic that we clearly owed ?26k and should just cough up might not have been the whole story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Have arbroath officially approached them yet? Hopeing to embarrass us into paying what we said we'd pay? Then why did Hearts admit we owed them the money, and promise to pay up shortly? IMO, we should pay up because we admitted we owed them the money, and that we'd received our money from Wigan already, and promised to pay up shortly, all of which happened over 6 months ago? http://www.heartsfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/HeartsNewsDetail/0,,10289~1295795,00.html If we feel the situation has changed and we're now not going to pay up, we should at least update people that our view has changed? We "promised" ( that is probably the wrong word to use)to pay at a time that Webster was meant to pay Hearts ?600K+. The paper says the amount was subsequently negotiated down but I don't recall anything about that, and Hearts never publicly acknowledged the lower amount so the April statement is redundant. As for the bit in bold - why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 We "promised" ( that is probably the wrong word to use)to pay at a time that Webster was meant to pay Hearts ?600K+. Have you read the linked article from the Hearts Website? Says pretty clearly that we're getting 160k from Wigan, and that we've recently received that money, that we owe Arbroath a share and that we'll be sending it to them shortly. This article is from way after the point in time where we were expecting to get 600k from Webster. The paper says the amount was subsequently negotiated down but I don't recall anything about that, and Hearts never publicly acknowledged the lower amount so the April statement is redundant. As for the bit in bold - why? For the same reason we put the original article up? To put across our side of the story? At the moment, we've publically admitted we owe them the money, and are now apparently refusing to pay up despite saying we would do over 6 months ago. If our story has changed, surely we should say so? Or do you think silently ignoring all our bills is the way to go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devries4 Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 So, when Hearts say "The third division side is due ?26,000 courtesy of a sell-on clause" what we actually mean is "He wasn't sold on" and we don't owe them anything? okay doke. I read the statement linked below. It actually confirms nothing at all. The link below talks of paying a slice, but a slice of what? If it's the sell on then the slice to Arbroath is nothing. That is all that I am implying. If Hearts are going to give them their share and have actually stated a figure to Arbroath then yes it does look poor, but if the final transfer fee is nil then so be it. http://www.heartsfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/HeartsNewsDetail/0,,10289~1295795,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicTs Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 We should have a whip round at the Hibs game to avoid further embarassment. If we all pay ?1 each we can clear the debt to Arbroath What a shambles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I read the statement linked below. It actually confirms nothing at all. The link below talks of paying a slice, but a slice of what? If it's the sell on then the slice to Arbroath is nothing. That is all that I am implying. If Hearts are going to give them their share and have actually stated a figure to Arbroath then yes it does look poor, but if the final transfer fee is nil then so be it. http://www.heartsfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/HeartsNewsDetail/0,,10289~1295795,00.html Fair enough mate. Here's the first two paragraphs. Heart of Midlothian FC (Hearts) today (22nd April) said that Arbroath FC will shortly receive their slice of the money owed following the ?150,000 transfer of defender Andy Webster to Wigan Athletic. The third division side is due ?26,000 courtesy of a sell-on clause, with Hearts about to make settlement having only recently received the cash from the English Premiership club. I don't see how that can be interpreted any way other than us saying we are due Arbroath ?26,000 courtesy of a sell-on clause. Now we know this was later negotiated down to 14k (% of profit (160k-75k), rather than % of full 160k), but I see no indication from HMFC that we claim not to owe them any money now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merse Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Embarrassing that people are still trying to defend Hearts over this. It's pathetic and completely unecessary bad press we're creating for ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devries4 Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 Fair enough mate. Here's the first two paragraphs. Heart of Midlothian FC (Hearts) today (22nd April) said that Arbroath FC will shortly receive their slice of the money owed following the ?150,000 transfer of defender Andy Webster to Wigan Athletic. The third division side is due ?26,000 courtesy of a sell-on clause, with Hearts about to make settlement having only recently received the cash from the English Premiership club. I don't see how that can be interpreted any way other than us saying we are due Arbroath ?26,000 courtesy of a sell-on clause. Now we know this was later negotiated down to 14k (% of profit (160k-75k), rather than % of full 160k), but I see no indication from HMFC that we claim not to owe them any money now. Yes they are due 26k courtesy of a sell on clause, that's not up for argument, however all I am saying is that it is all very well if it was a sell on. It wasn't a sell on it was compensation for breaking a contract (legally or illegally but that's another story). So all I am trying to imply is that if you can interpret the statement to read that a slice of nothing is nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONis Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I think people need to listen to the inteview on the BBC website with Arbroath's secretary Gary Callon http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/heart_of_midlothian/7764721.stm Hopefully that will help cut short this circular argument. Yours aDONis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merse Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Yes they are due 26k courtesy of a sell on clause, that's not up for argument, however all I am saying is that it is all very well if it was a sell on. It wasn't a sell on it was compensation for breaking a contract (legally or illegally but that's another story). So all I am trying to imply is that if you can interpret the statement to read that a slice of nothing is nothing. Give it a break. We're admitting we're due them money, saying we're going to give them it soon. What is so difficult to understand about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Yes they are due 26k courtesy of a sell on clause, that's not up for argument, however all I am saying is that it is all very well if it was a sell on. It wasn't a sell on it was compensation for breaking a contract (legally or illegally but that's another story). So all I am trying to imply is that if you can interpret the statement to read that a slice of nothing is nothing. So what you're saying is that we can interpret the clause and use the law to our ends in order to avoid paying Arbroath, in much the same way that Webster used the law in order to screw us? Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devries4 Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 So what you're saying is that we can interpret the clause and use the law to our ends in order to avoid paying Arbroath, in much the same way that Webster used the law in order to screw us? Nice. Never said it was nice, all i said was that it was a interpretation, nothing more nothing less. I don't want to see Arbroath hard done by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chat Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 We really are our own worst enemies sometimes, aren't we ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.