Jump to content

?17m payment


Jammy T

Recommended Posts

This would appear to be, I imagine, the biggest ever payment due by the club in its history.

 

I like to be even handed in my criticism of Vlad (:th_o:), but whilst I am aware that the payment is due to Ukio Bankas, I am not aware what it is for.

 

On the presumption that there would need to be some openness to shareholders at least as to what the club are paying this large chunk of money for, can anybody confirm

 

1. What it is that is costing Hearts ?17m

2. Whether there was any mention at the last AGM as to how it was going to be paid

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

crossgates jambo
This would appear to be, I imagine, the biggest ever payment due by the club in its history.

 

I like to be even handed in my criticism of Vlad (:th_o:), but whilst I am aware that the payment is due to Ukio Bankas, I am not aware what it is for.

 

On the presumption that there would need to be some openness to shareholders at least as to what the club are paying this large chunk of money for, can anybody confirm

 

1. What it is that is costing Hearts ?17m

2. Whether there was any mention at the last AGM as to how it was going to be paid

 

Cheers

 

I don't think the ?17m was for any one thing, it is just debt that has been accumulated through the dire financial mis-management of this regime. Who knows how it will be repaid, but I would put my house on it being dealt with in some way that doesn't impact us come the due date. Probably be a debt re-structure or something like that. I would say it won't be a DFE swap again as we can't have much left that would make that a viable option for the debtor (UKIO?UBIG?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was this not all debated around the time of the last accounts?

I thought the general view was that this is a service charge on the debt to U.B., existing on paper for legal accountancy reasons but at present not expected to be paid (though obviously if the club ownership changed it could be applied).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was this not all debated around the time of the last accounts?

I thought the general view was that this is a service charge on the debt to U.B., existing on paper for legal accountancy reasons but at present not expected to be paid (though obviously if the club ownership changed it could be applied).

 

Was it

 

1. actually a requirement simply to reduce our overdraft by ?17m eg simply a requirement that we pay off a chunk that was already owed, and already allowed for within our overdraft

 

or

 

2. sums due in additional to the overdraft we currently have - some sort of additional charges not already accounted for?

 

One is completely different from the other, although both could be equally as problematic depending upon the approach of UKIO.

 

I cant fathom how earth it could possibly be number 2, but just wondered if there was any clarity on this anywhere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HelloSunshine

One thing is for sure - if the debt is rearranged through Ukio Bankas, the deal / interest rates will massively benefit them, given that the bank's owner simply needs to negotiate with himself to arrange the deal and he clearly doesn't want to pump more money into HMFC (hence lack of striker / funds).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kingantti1874

It's just a part of our overall debt which was funded by ubig and has o be renegiotiated in January. If it isn't renegiotiated Or easily re-finanable then we may have a problem. Man u have a similar issue with about ?175m of their debt which was funde by a hedge fund and is due for re-negiotiation-bank aren't to keen to fund football teams these days.

 

Hopefully between ukio and ubig we will be ok-no guarantees tho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following the sales (or net sales) of players next month, they* might as well write off that debt as, if we disregard the small 5% of other shareholders, it makes no sense for one pocket to keep owing the other pocket a specific sum of money.

 

* UBIG/UKIO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The People's Chimp
Was it

 

1. actually a requirement simply to reduce our overdraft by ?17m eg simply a requirement that we pay off a chunk that was already owed, and already allowed for within our overdraft

 

or

 

2. sums due in additional to the overdraft we currently have - some sort of additional charges not already accounted for?

 

One is completely different from the other, although both could be equally as problematic depending upon the approach of UKIO.

 

I cant fathom how earth it could possibly be number 2, but just wondered if there was any clarity on this anywhere

 

I'm sure charlie will be along in a minute to explain everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie-Brown

Our total debt is made up of various term loans from ukio & ubig. This payment is for one of these loans that expires feb 2010 so it will either have to be repaid or refinanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kingantti1874
One thing is for sure - if the debt is rearranged through Ukio Bankas, the deal / interest rates will massively benefit them, given that the bank's owner simply needs to negotiate with himself to arrange the deal and he clearly doesn't want to pump more money into HMFC (hence lack of striker / funds).

 

I don't like vlaf but this view that he is chrging massive interest rates is false, we pay roughly half the interet we did under hbos, and hearts even taking interest out of the equation are a loss making institution. The shortfall has to be subsidised by additional loans / funds. There is no benefit for Vladimir Romanov to increase that shortfall-it just increases the value of the subsidy..

 

That said If we were run properly none of this would be an issue.

 

My big concern is they pay off the 17m by handingthe rights of tynie to ubig! Then we still have circa 17m debt and no assets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glamorgan Jambo

The reason it caught the auditors eye in the last published accounts was that the auditors were given no access to UBIG to say whether this could be simply refinanced or whatever. In fact the best the auditors could come up with was a declaration from the HMFC directors (R.Romanov, Fedetovas, Goncaruk and Vasilauskis) that they had received written guarantees from UBI saying they had the means that wouldn't necessitate them immediately calling in the debt.

 

Possible scenarios for early next year include (from optimistic to pessimistic) include

 

- a further debt for equity swap

- renegotiation/extension of the loan note facility

- a swap for an asset that's worth close to the ?17million e.g. Tynecasstle last valued at ?15 million

 

etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glamorgan Jambo

I should have said that the ?17.6 million s owed to Ukio Bancas not UBIG and UBIG have told the directors they have the means to address the loan note.

 

IMO its unlikely Ukio Bancas wll be able to simply roll over this loan note

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our total debt is made up of various term loans from ukio & ubig. This payment is for one of these loans that expires feb 2010 so it will either have to be repaid or refinanced.

 

That doesnt really answer the question

 

1. Is this part of our overall overdraft.

 

Eg Do we have overall liabilities of the overdraft with an agreement that part of this overdraft - ?17m is due to be paid in January.

 

or

 

do we have liabilities of the overdraft eg circa ?34m plus ?17m in addition due to UKIO

 

2. If this is not part of our overall overdraft and we are actually due ?34m ish plus ?17m what the feck is this additional ?17m for

 

Its not exactly small numbers here so if glibness could be avoided that would be great thanks :clover:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kingantti1874

It's part of our overall debt, it's not 34+17.. our total dbt of 34m is actually made up of loans from various parties, ubig are one of those parties And that particular relationship is up for renewal!

 

Like if you have a mortgage that is up for renewal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's part of our overall debt, it's not 34+17.. our total dbt of 34m is actually made up of loans from various parties, ubig are one of those parties And that particular relationship is up for renewal!

 

Like if you have a mortgage that is up for renewal!

 

Fair enough - is that clear from the accounts or is it your opinion?

 

I seem to recall mention was once made of approval of our overdraft limit being increased to ?40m, which suggested our overdraft of itself was ?40m

 

So presumably from what you say it sounds as if our overdraft is basically due to be decreased with UKIO in January by this sum - I doubt we have loans as well as an overdraft with them?

 

They'd be daft not to role it over then, given we cant pay it.

 

But they could of course demand, say, Tynecastle if they wanted....

 

Oh well, I'll just join the big shoulder shrug party then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesnt really answer the question

 

1. Is this part of our overall overdraft.

 

Eg Do we have overall liabilities of the overdraft with an agreement that part of this overdraft - ?17m is due to be paid in January.

 

or

 

do we have liabilities of the overdraft eg circa ?34m plus ?17m in addition due to UKIO

 

2. If this is not part of our overall overdraft and we are actually due ?34m ish plus ?17m what the feck is this additional ?17m for

 

Its not exactly small numbers here so if glibness could be avoided that would be great thanks :clover:

 

The ?17.6 million loan repayment is part of the current ?30 million debt. If it's repaid or swapped for equity, the overall debt will reduce by that amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ?17.6 million loan repayment is part of the current ?30 million debt. If it's repaid or swapped for equity, the overall debt will reduce by that amount.

 

Corroboration - nice

 

So we just have to worry about how it is dealt with

 

Have the club said anything about it formally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough - is that clear from the accounts or is it your opinion?

 

I seem to recall mention was once made of approval of our overdraft limit being increased to ?40m, which suggested our overdraft of itself was ?40m

 

So presumably from what you say it sounds as if our overdraft is basically due to be decreased with UKIO in January by this sum - I doubt we have loans as well as an overdraft with them?

 

They'd be daft not to role it over then, given we cant pay it.

 

But they could of course demand, say, Tynecastle if they wanted....

 

Oh well, I'll just join the big shoulder shrug party then...

 

 

UBIG effectively own Tynecastle anyway as they are our major creditor and could liquidate the club to recover the money they are owed. Taking ownership of Tynecastle in exchange for the repayment of the loan would effectively remove the debt from the club in exchange for the asset. So in theory Hearts benefit from reduced debt, UBIB benefit from taking control of the asset.

 

I'm not claiming this would be a good thing for the club, but I feel that it is the most likely scenario. As long as Hearts retain beneficial use of Tynecastle on a long term lease (standard is 99 years for these kind of deals) then it shouldn't be too much of an issue as long as the club is run with a sensible business model. Who knows whether the current regime can manage that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

loveofthegame
The ?17.6 million loan repayment is part of the current ?30 million debt. If it's repaid or swapped for equity, the overall debt will reduce by that amount.

 

So my understanding then is it could be a good thing or a very very bad thing. i.e. the debt could be reduced by an enormous ?17M in January, or could be called in forcing us into admin or losing us Tynie?!

 

Just putting it into laymans terms for myself?! That is correct yeah??!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HelloSunshine
I don't like vlaf but this view that he is chrging massive interest rates is false, we pay roughly half the interet we did under hbos, and hearts even taking interest out of the equation are a loss making institution. The shortfall has to be subsidised by additional loans / funds. There is no benefit for Vladimir Romanov to increase that shortfall-it just increases the value of the subsidy..

 

That said If we were run properly none of this would be an issue.

 

My big concern is they pay off the 17m by handingthe rights of tynie to ubig! Then we still have circa 17m debt and no assets

 

Fair enough - I'm just uber suspicious about everything that the club is doing behind the scenes at the moment.

We seem to be good at optimism ans sarcasm on this site, and so the potential problems that could come out of this loan thing are rarely mentioned, so your comments about tynie and the remaining ?17m are interesting. Vlad will have a plan that benefits his overall companies no doubt, regardless of whether this means that the HMFC balance sheet is a horror story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my understanding then is it could be a good thing or a very very bad thing. i.e. the debt could be reduced by an enormous ?17M in January, or could be called in forcing us into admin or losing us Tynie?!

 

Just putting it into laymans terms for myself?! That is correct yeah??!

 

Correct, although if the club is liquidated at this juncture, the sale of the assets would not come close to covering the overall debt. So it is in UBIG's interests to keep the club as a going concern.

 

The most likely scenario in my opinion, is that UBIG will assume ownership of Tynecastle in exchange for repayment of the loan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UBIG effectively own Tynecastle anyway as they are our major creditor and could liquidate the club to recover the money they are owed. Taking ownership of Tynecastle in exchange for the repayment of the loan would effectively remove the debt from the club in exchange for the asset. So in theory Hearts benefit from reduced debt, UBIB benefit from taking control of the asset.

 

I'm not claiming this would be a good thing for the club, but I feel that it is the most likely scenario. As long as Hearts retain beneficial use of Tynecastle on a long term lease (standard is 99 years for these kind of deals) then it shouldn't be too much of an issue as long as the club is run with a sensible business model. Who knows whether the current regime can manage that.

 

Separating the team from the land is the only out for Romanov - if it doesnt happen January it will likely happen sometime.

 

Once that happens the football side of things will be even more irrelevant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct, although if the club is liquidated at this juncture, the sale of the assets would not come close to covering the overall debt. So it is in UBIG's interests to keep the club as a going concern.

 

The most likely scenario in my opinion, is that UBIG will assume ownership of Tynecastle in exchange for repayment of the loan.

 

And run the club at low a cost as possible, beyond at least the time within which the transfer of land could be challenged if Hearts went into liquidation.

 

Is that 2 years these days?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
So my understanding then is it could be a good thing or a very very bad thing. i.e. the debt could be reduced by an enormous ?17M in January, or could be called in forcing us into admin or losing us Tynie?!

 

Just putting it into laymans terms for myself?! That is correct yeah??!

Yes and yes.

 

IMO the likeliest scenario is that this part of our debt will be rolled over for another year or two. The interest rate payable could be amended up or down. If we were owned independently from UBIG/UKIO then we would have a very weak negotiating position and would undoubtedly end up in administration. The fact that we are owned by UBIG means that UKIO will apply whatever rates that feel are in their best inerests, i.e. squeeze as much as they can out of us without killing the club entirely.

 

The only other possibility is as Martin T says, the formal handover of Tynecastle to UBIG through a sale and leaseback arrangement, and the subsequent reduction of the overall debt.

 

In the last set of accounts, Tynie was valued at ?15.1M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Separating the team from the land is the only out for Romanov - if it doesnt happen January it will likely happen sometime.

 

Once that happens the football side of things will be even more irrelevant

 

Important to remember that HBOS have already tried to do this back in 2004, which is what led to Save our Hearts and ultimately to Romanov. At the current time our assets do not come close to covering our debt, so it is very much in UBIG's interests to run the club as a going concern to try and recover the rest of the debt, unless that is, they choose to write it off and close down the club (due to it being a loss making entity).

 

It's far from ideal, but ultimately as long as the club retains beneficial use of the stadium then as I said earlier, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

The important thing to note is that there is no way that HMFC or any of HMFC's assets can meet the payment and therefore we will default on it.

 

My guess is either a debt for equity swap will occur or the debt will roll over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The important thing to note is that there is no way that HMFC or any of HMFC's assets can meet the payment and therefore we will default on it.

 

My guess is either a debt for equity swap will occur or the debt will roll over.

 

Not sure about that Geoff. From memory Tynecastle was valued at ?15.5 million in the last accounts, it would therefore seem to me that assuming ownership of Tynecastle plus one significant player sale would equal the value of the loan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about that Geoff. From memory Tynecastle was valued at ?15.5 million in the last accounts, it would therefore seem to me that assuming ownership of Tynecastle plus one significant player sale would equal the value of the loan.

 

Thats the way I have seen it. No point continually owning the a very sizeable debt back to yourself for an operation that is far off becoming a profitable structure. It also makes sense to UBIG/Ukios as the interest rates could still stay the same for the rest of the money owed making them even more cash from us. But given the rate of losses Hearts have endured the past 4 years I expect the debt to still be easily around the ?20 million mark if and once the ?17 million is paid back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kingantti1874
Fair enough - I'm just uber suspicious about everything that the club is doing behind the scenes at the moment.

We seem to be good at optimism ans sarcasm on this site, and so the potential problems that could come out of this loan thing are rarely mentioned, so your comments about tynie and the remaining ?17m are interesting. Vlad will have a plan that benefits his overall companies no doubt, regardless of whether this means that the HMFC balance sheet is a horror story.

 

Totally agree, I think long term we will end up in the same position we were in in 04/05 under the pie man! Romanov will eventually leave but he will have his pound of flesh.. The easiest pound to remove is tynecastle..

 

That is based on nothing but my own view as to how this may pan out! I hope not but I don't see too many viable exit strategies for Romanov..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skivingatwork

This thread is a bit like the round on Mock the Week when they ask,

 

If ?17million is the answer, what is the question?

 

IMO this could work out to be a good thing if another debt for equity swap was agreed.

 

In effect our debt would half to around ?17million and UBIG would own more shares, the shares being of a lesser value.

 

It would (tin hat on) make us more attractive to an outside investor as the outstanding debt to be serviced is a lot more managable. However, the other side of the coin is that who is currently looking to invest in loss-making Scottish football clubs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
Not sure about that Geoff. From memory Tynecastle was valued at ?15.5 million in the last accounts, it would therefore seem to me that assuming ownership of Tynecastle plus one significant player sale would equal the value of the loan.

 

Sorry, what I meant to say was we can't generate the funds. You are correct - that could meet the value of the payment.

 

However, all that would do would be to make the club even more insolvent. In effect, it would be an internal asset transfer within the UBIG group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colonel Kurtz

CRs proposal would have left us debt free

How anyone can say this worst kept secret is beneficial to anyone but Romanov is unbelievable

We will be left as tenants on a rent determined by Romanov,we could possibly rent Murrayfield for less,with no assets and debt of 20 million plus.

Look at numbers ,Romanov has not spent a penny of his own money.

Whats Russian for "They dumb Scots take it up the erse and thank you"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
CRs proposal would have left us debt free

How anyone can say this worst kept secret is beneficial to anyone but Romanov is unbelievable

We will be left as tenants on a rent determined by Romanov,we could possibly rent Murrayfield for less,with no assets and debt of 20 million plus.

Look at numbers ,Romanov has not spent a penny of his own money.

Whats Russian for "They dumb Scots take it up the erse and thank you"

 

A 'sale and leaseback' is also what Robert McGrail proposed.

 

There are too many people dealing in supposition at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Treasurer

We'll be fine once the organisers of the protest have collected the 20p each from 80 billion fans to buyout Vlad (or whatever the figure was that they plucked out of the air)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colonel Kurtz
A 'sale and leaseback' is also what Robert McGrail proposed.

 

There are too many people dealing in supposition at the moment.

 

Surely it is looking at the options in advance not supposition,interestingly the pravda posters on here have not dismissed the proposition but to try and justify it.

Remember ,Romanov arranges who does the valuation,and I would get whoever valued his offer for St Andrews square,...they are due him a favour.

If the valuation and the transfer fees received in January somehow add up to 17 million,that would a surprise

Rent will not be set independantly,but by Romanov

The residual debt will still be seviced by Romanov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drylaw Hearts

The most likely scenario in my opinion, is that UBIG will assume ownership of Tynecastle in exchange for repayment of the loan.

 

My thoughts also.

 

That will leave us with no stadium and a debt of around ?20million.

 

 

Great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh

From a link supplied by RJ on another thread it appears Vlad and his gimp of a son are past masters at creating complex webs to follow re their finances and their dealings in companies, shell and otherwise. It stands to reason that the finance web they have created around the club is similar in it's complexity and covert-ness (sic). So don't be surprised if you cannot a. unravel them to understand where we as a club and it's fans stand or b. expect them to offer an explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drylaw Hearts
CRs proposal would have left us debt free

How anyone can say this worst kept secret is beneficial to anyone but Romanov is unbelievable

We will be left as tenants on a rent determined by Romanov,we could possibly rent Murrayfield for less,with no assets and debt of 20 million plus.

Look at numbers ,Romanov has not spent a penny of his own money.

Whats Russian for "They dumb Scots take it up the erse and thank you"

 

CK.......

 

You have certainly changed your tune from 2 or 3 years back.

 

Do you remember posting photo's such as :

 

grumpy-muppets.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colonel Kurtz
CK.......

 

You have certainly changed your tune from 2 or 3 years back.

 

Do you remember posting photo's such as :

 

grumpy-muppets.jpg

 

I didnt know then ,and dont know now,how to post photos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where this post is headed but my understanding of the situation is that Vlad and his mother have,between them, the controlling interest in Ukio Bankas.

 

Ubig is a wholly owned subsidiary, their investment arm, of Ukio Bankas.

 

So, whichever way you look at it Vlad already owns Tynecastle, the football club and almost everything else HMFC related. The only thing he doesn't own is the academy at Riccarton.

 

I don't think it's worth worrying about what Ubig or Ukio Banaks may or may not want to do. It all depends on what Vlad wants to do. If he needs cash then selling the land is an option open to him. Not sure that the land is worth 315m as a football stadium, but equally I'm sure how any developer would get approval to build houses on the land. Any Councillor that supported such a proposal would be out on his ear at the next election.

 

Our only concern in terms of the future of HMFC, unless ownership changes, is how well is Vlad's business empire performing. If it's doing ok or well then we are ok, if it's in trouble then so are we. Just like RBS they will sell off whatever assets are not core to the business, eg HMFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie-Brown

We don't own anything & we don't owe anything - Romanov owns/controls it all HMFC, the Debt, Tynecastle, Ukio Bankas, UBIG - if Romanov company A owes Romanov company B then it's Romanov who has the problem if company A doesn't have the means to repay company B and company B taking or selling assets from company A might help balance some books or reduce inter company debts but at the end of the day if UBIG/Romanov ever want to sell HMFC as a going concern with or without ownership of tynecastle then they have to create a company with a balance sheet, financial & footballing prospects that somebody will be willing to pay decent money or else he's looking at only getting back pennies in the pound for HMFC if the football club has no decent players, no stadium and still large debts to UKIO or UBIG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colonel Kurtz

Then if its all in the family,,why charge interest on the debt.

If your brother borrowed a tenner of you in the boozer,would you charge him interest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then if its all in the family,,why charge interest on the debt.

If your brother borrowed a tenner of you in the boozer,would you charge him interest

 

I seen this asked a few times on here and it has never been answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any number of reasons for charging interest on an inter-company basis. Balance Sheet manipulation, profit realisation (dividends), loss generation (taxable losses carried forward for offset against future profits in other parts of the business) etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie-Brown
Then if its all in the family,,why charge interest on the debt.

If your brother borrowed a tenner of you in the boozer,would you charge him interest

 

Who are they charging interest to CK? who are they paying it to? Who's money are they using? Who owns the company and assets that pays the interest that is charged? Who owns the equity that was swapped for debt that was owed to who? Romanov could force a sale of all minority shareholders quite easily - he effectively owns HMFC lock, stock & barrell already anyway - he lends it money and pays it back .... the only thing he doesn't control is how much money from external sources - ie attendances, merchandising, sponsorship, transfer fees etc - but however much comes in doesn't equal what goes out so he has to loan more of his own companies money to bail out another of his companies etc etc.

 

Basically at the end of the day if Romanov ever wants to sell HMFC he will have to offer a football club company with enough assets and/or a stadium for sale or lease that somebody wants to buy otherwise he will be stuck with HMFC forever or else only get back a percentage of the money he's put in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colonel Kurtz
Who are they charging interest to CK? who are they paying it to? Who's money are they using? Who owns the company and assets that pays the interest that is charged? Who owns the equity that was swapped for debt that was owed to who? Romanov could force a sale of all minority shareholders quite easily - he effectively owns HMFC lock, stock & barrell already anyway - he lends it money and pays it back .... the only thing he doesn't control is how much money from external sources - ie attendances, merchandising, sponsorship, transfer fees etc - but however much comes in doesn't equal what goes out so he has to loan more of his own companies money to bail out another of his companies etc etc.

 

Basically at the end of the day if Romanov ever wants to sell HMFC he will have to offer a football club company with enough assets and/or a stadium for sale or lease that somebody wants to buy otherwise he will be stuck with HMFC forever or else only get back a percentage of the money he's put in.

 

He hasnt put any money in,its added to the debt

If he cuts Hearts loose in quarter one next year,with no fixed assets and with a debt of around 20 million ,paying rent to Romanov,and with the debt serviced by Romanov,what is the party line .

Would you at least agree that the valuation should be independant and the rent be independantly assessed

Please respond to the specific points and not with some 5 year plan type answer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He can't cut Hearts loose with no assets and 20m debt at any time because no-one would buy it!! The point you are missing is that HMFC is only a standalone entity in the media in Scotland and because it's still reported that way in the Vlad empire's business structure. He doesn't even need to produce accounts for HMFC if he doesn't want. He could just take HMFC private, rather than public, and then no-one would know any of our secrets. CB is correct, the debt doesn't exist as such, it's just part of a much bigger organisation. In fact taking HMFC private would probably be a good idea because then it would kill this whole debt topic/discussion. It's a similar problem at Man U, Liverpool and Chelsea and the only ones who really need to worry about it are the Glazers, Gillet and his side-kick and Abramovic. It's their clubs and it's their empire's money that is financing the football clubs. It's about the only area where we are on a par with those three clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...