Ryan Gosling Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Reading the debt thread got me to wondering: would everyone be happy with us no longer owning Tynecastle, but having a lease on it and using the facilities to pay off the lesser debt from the sale of it in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts Heritage Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Reading the debt thread got me to wondering: would everyone be happy with us no longer owning Tynecastle, but having a lease on it and using the facilities to pay off the lesser debt from the sale of it in the first place? Whether people are 'happy' with it or not we might have already gone beyond that stage as much due to Robinson as Romanov also it is up to Ukio / UBIG / HBOS to dictate the terms that are acceptable to them in terms of the financing they provide - football supporter approval factors almost certainly won't factor too highly in their priorities regards protecting their investment & companies risk / exposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 not sure, i wouldn't trust the people it was being 'sold' to though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blairdin Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Whether we agree or not I think it is inevitable. This is what I think will happen. I think this is Vlad/UBIGs game. Redevelop Tynie to include the hotel, flats, conference centre, restaurant, bar et all. Once that is completed, UBIG will retain ownership of the new stadium development and the money made from the above will eventually cover the development cost and generate significant income for them. Meanwhile, Hearts will be sold to A N Other - probably when Vlad dies as he does seem to enjoy tinkering with football teams! The new owner(s) will have a long term lease on Tynie, dare I say a percentage of gate money, and it will then be up to us to live within our means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T.F.Robertson Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I'd feel a lot easier not having that horrendous amount of debt hanging over us, but conversely, leasing is a never-ending "debt". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I'd feel a lot easier not having that horrendous amount of debt hanging over us, but conversely, leasing is a never-ending "debt". Leasing is a never ending debt.....a buy back / mortgage is prefereable to a lease even if it spans 25-35 years......anyway more importantly we have to live within our means on an annual basis first then figure out how best to resolve the stadium / debt conundrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Would depend on the terms and the length of the lease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T.F.Robertson Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Leasing is a never ending debt.....a buy back / mortgage is prefereable to a lease even if it spans 25-35 years......anyway more importantly we have to live within our means on an annual basis first then figure out how best to resolve the stadium / debt conundrum. If that's so obvious now, why was it not instigated from the beginning? Why did we (and it looks ever more obvious, it is "we") throw ludicrous amounts of money away, before finally arriving at this inevitable conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Gosling Posted March 20, 2008 Author Share Posted March 20, 2008 Would depend on the terms and the length of the lease. Say 30 years with an option to buy at the end, or renew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 If that's so obvious now, why was it not instigated from the beginning? Why did we (and it looks ever more obvious, it is "we") throw ludicrous amounts of money away, before finally arriving at this inevitable conclusion? I don't know - "we" / Hearts / us as in our team & club - have been overspending on the football team and losing money every year since 1998 - it's like a heroin addiction and 2005-06 was a great 'FIX' for us success starved fans who were too young & missed the 50's & early 60's ..... anyway the financial damage (contracts signed) ocurred in 2005-06 however the consequences have lasted into last season & this season & despite selling - releasing our best players & higher earners the financial benefit of this will only be realised in arrears ie future seasons.....but the team will have declined as a result - most people think VR's mistake have been his actions since winning the Scottish Cup but I think the real problems were all created prior to that in awarding over generous contracts - everything since has been financial damage limitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkato Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Whether we agree or not I think it is inevitable. This is what I think will happen. I think this is Vlad/UBIGs game. Redevelop Tynie to include the hotel, flats, conference centre, restaurant, bar et all. Once that is completed, UBIG will retain ownership of the new stadium development and the money made from the above will eventually cover the development cost and generate significant income for them. Meanwhile, Hearts will be sold to A N Other - probably when Vlad dies as he does seem to enjoy tinkering with football teams! The new owner(s) will have a long term lease on Tynie, dare I say a percentage of gate money, and it will then be up to us to live within our means. Good post. Spot on as far as I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T.F.Robertson Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I don't know - "we" / Hearts / us as in our team & club - have been overspending on the football team and losing money every year since 1998 - it's like a heroin addiction and 2005-06 was a great 'FIX' for us success starved fans who were too young & missed the 50's & early 60's ..... anyway the financial damage (contracts signed) ocurred in 2005-06 however the consequences have lasted into last season & this season & despite selling - releasing our best players & higher earners the financial benefit of this will only be realised in arrears ie future seasons.....but the team will have declined as a result - most people think VR's mistake have been his actions since winning the Scottish Cup but I think the real problems were all created prior to that in awarding over generous contracts - everything since has been financial damage limitation. As there are probably countless theories for the switch from the "we're loaded" approach, to the "hold on, now we're skint" one, it was actually almost a rhetorical question, but thanks anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Losing Tynecastle Never happen!! The 1 & 2 drop me off right at the door!:107years: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Never happen!! The 1 & 2 drop me off right at the door!:107years: LRT Bus no's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 all take you within reasonable walking distance of Tynie / favourite pre-match pubs..... Conversely the number 7 bus takes you close enough to Fester Road..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I don't know - "we" / Hearts / us as in our team & club - have been overspending on the football team and losing money every year since 1998 - it's like a heroin addiction and 2005-06 was a great 'FIX' for us success starved fans who were too young & missed the 50's & early 60's ..... anyway the financial damage (contracts signed) ocurred in 2005-06 however the consequences have lasted into last season & this season & despite selling - releasing our best players & higher earners the financial benefit of this will only be realised in arrears ie future seasons.....but the team will have declined as a result - most people think VR's mistake have been his actions since winning the Scottish Cup but I think the real problems were all created prior to that in awarding over generous contracts - everything since has been financial damage limitation. How old are you? Your profile says Date of Birth: April 1, 1976 April Fool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nailrod Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Not going to happen. In the curent market, and given Hearts' current financial situation, a third party would only buy the ground if there was current planning permission for something easy, cheap and low risk to develop (i.e. flats). They would want to discount their buying price against potential lost revenues if the tenant went bust and defaulted on the rent - an obvious risk given that Hearts would have no assets left and would still be carrying a debt of somewhere between 15 and 20 million.. They would want to discount their buying price against cost of disposal and lost rent over the period of disposal if they had to sell to recoup their investment. Given that Hearts are currently losing money, they would want payment (probably for the first two years) up front. So UBIG/UKIO would have to sell an asset at a price discounted by two or three million against its book value, and then hand over a couple of million in cash for the up front rent payments. Net 'gain' to UBIG/UKIO: minus four or five million. I doubt they're in a position to perform such an act of generosity at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Say 30 years with an option to buy at the end, or renew. How much do we get up front and what do we have to pay each year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 How old are you? Your profile says Date of Birth: April 1, 1976 April Fool That's my wife's birthday previously when I was 'Charlie Brown' I had a different profile ...... anyway I am the big '40' in a few weeks time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Not going to happen. In the curent market, and given Hearts' current financial situation, a third party would only buy the ground if there was current planning permission for something easy, cheap and low risk to develop (i.e. flats). They would want to discount their buying price against potential lost revenues if the tenant went bust and defaulted on the rent - an obvious risk given that Hearts would have no assets left and would still be carrying a debt of somewhere between 15 and 20 million.. They would want to discount their buying price against cost of disposal and lost rent over the period of disposal if they had to sell to recoup their investment. Given that Hearts are currently losing money, they would want payment (probably for the first two years) up front. So UBIG/UKIO would have to sell an asset at a price discounted by two or three million against its book value, and then hand over a couple of million in cash for the up front rent payments. Net 'gain' to UBIG/UKIO: minus four or five million. I doubt they're in a position to perform such an act of generosity at the moment. Of course it isn't, but the kites are being flown to test out our reaction, apparently! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Of course it isn't, but the kites are being flown to test out our reaction, apparently! Isn't it more likely that UBIG would separate Hearts the football operation from Tynecastle the stadium property as a means of securing / funding redevelopment which the football club would then lease to buy the stadium back from the parent or development company - just as happened at fester road with Hibernian FC and Hibernian Holdings (a T.Farmer company that controlled the stadium). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasavallan Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Whether we agree or not I think it is inevitable. This is what I think will happen. I think this is Vlad/UBIGs game. Redevelop Tynie to include the hotel, flats, conference centre, restaurant, bar et all. Once that is completed, UBIG will retain ownership of the new stadium development and the money made from the above will eventually cover the development cost and generate significant income for them. Meanwhile, Hearts will be sold to A N Other - probably when Vlad dies as he does seem to enjoy tinkering with football teams! The new owner(s) will have a long term lease on Tynie, dare I say a percentage of gate money, and it will then be up to us to live within our means. This has been my thinking for a while now, however, in respect to the last paragraph the sell-off of the football club will likely only be after it becomes a viable investment (i.e. the debt is removed from its accounts). A state it certainly is not in at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nailrod Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Isn't it more likely that UBIG would separate Hearts the football operation from Tynecastle the stadium property as a means of securing / funding redevelopment which the football club would then lease to buy the stadium back from the parent or development company - just as happened at fester road with Hibernian FC and Hibernian Holdings (a T.Farmer company that controlled the stadium). Whether UBIG separate the Football operation from the stadium is neither here nor there. If a Developer buys the land to develop it - whoever they buy it from - they'll pay the market rate for the land at its development value. If an Investor buys the stadium - whoever they buy it from - to lease it back to Hearts for use as a football stadium they'll pay the market rate for the land at its development value, minus the discounts noted above - i.e. they'll pay less for the land than its book value. If UBIG are desperate enough for cash to go for that solution then it's not very likely they're going to be able to carry the remaining 15 million of unsecured debt for very much longer, and it's even less likely that they'll find partners to join them in a 50 million development that will definitively put an end to any prospect of them selling Tynecastle at its development value. Plus, Hearts FC will end up paying the lease at its full commercial rate - as opposed to preferential interest rates on a UKIO loan - as well as interest to UKIO on the outstanding debt. In other words, they'll be shelling out even more money than they are at the moment. Why is that a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I don't know whether this is an attempt at softening up the fans. Only if Hearts continue to be run in such a haphazard pattern and with the dead weight of the office/hotel development would such a path be necessary. I fail to believe that it is impossible to patch up the old stand such that it would get its safety certificates. And that the only way to raise funds to invest in the team is through selling the ground - in whatever form. Look at Hibs - yes they had a windfall with their car park. But they have raised millions through player sales. Those player sales did not come from trying to find damaged goods from all corners of the world and tricking buyers into taking them on. They invested in their youth system, made sure that their player costs were not out of line, had proper football managers who bled the youngsters in when they were ready. And now are on a sound financial footing. We could do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Italian Lambretta Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Then again once the Hotel and other money making ventures are built and the debt is cleared then Mad Vlad might do the unthinkable and gift the football club back to its fans. This has been my thinking for a while now, however, in respect to the last paragraph the sell-off of the football club will likely only be after it becomes a viable investment (i.e. the debt is removed from its accounts). A state it certainly is not in at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Then again once the Hotel and other money making ventures are built and the debt is cleared then Mad Vlad might do the unthinkable and gift the football club back to its fans. I think that the first part is less likely than the second! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboron Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Whether people are 'happy' with it or not we might have already gone beyond that stage as much due to Robinson as Romanov also it is up to Ukio / UBIG / HBOS to dictate the terms that are acceptable to them in terms of the financing they provide - football supporter approval factors almost certainly won't factor too highly in their priorities regards protecting their investment & companies risk / exposure. I don`t think HBOS have anything to do with Hearts, now that UKIO/UBIG are the ones associated with VR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Italian Lambretta Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I know! But, we can dream. I think that the first part is less likely than the second! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chat Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I don`t think HBOS have anything to do with Hearts, now that UKIO/UBIG are the ones associated with VR. Hearts UK business account is still held with HBoS witha couple of million overdraft limit IIRC. Its the reason HBoS are still mentioned on the Tynecastle title deeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Hearts UK business account is still held with HBoS witha couple of million overdraft limit IIRC. Its the reason HBoS are still mentioned on the Tynecastle title deeds. HBOS are only mentioned because they held a mortgage over the property. That mortgage was assigned to UKIO/UBIG (can't remember which one). They have no say in how UKIO/UBIG now runHearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Reading the debt thread got me to wondering: would everyone be happy with us no longer owning Tynecastle, but having a lease on it and using the facilities to pay off the lesser debt from the sale of it in the first place? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 HBOS are only mentioned because they held a mortgage over the property. That mortgage was assigned to UKIO/UBIG (can't remember which one). They have no say in how UKIO/UBIG now runHearts. They do however have a say on the terms & conditions & requirements attached to the financing they provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 They do however have a say on the terms & conditions & requirements attached to the financing they provide. Do they provide secured financing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chat Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 HBOS are only mentioned because they held a mortgage over the property. That mortgage was assigned to UKIO/UBIG (can't remember which one). They have no say in how UKIO/UBIG now runHearts. They don't have a say but we do still have a business relationship with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 They don't have a say but we do still have a business relationship with them. Apologies. I read the earlier post thinking you were meaning that they were in a position to dictate to UBIG/UKIO due to still having a security over Tynie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chat Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Apologies. I read the earlier post thinking you were meaning that they were in a position to dictate to UBIG/UKIO due to still having a security over Tynie. Cool mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Do they provide secured financing? They would be insane not to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 They would be insane not to? HBOS would be insane to provide secured financing and yet NOT register the Standard Security with the Registers of Scotland, something which they are legally required to do. Seeing as the only HBOS securities over Tynie are pre-VR and have since been assigned to UKIO/UBIG, i guess they are indeed insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 HBOS would be insane to provide secured financing and yet NOT register the Standard Security with the Registers of Scotland, something which they are legally required to do. Seeing as the only HBOS securities over Tynie are pre-VR and have since been assigned to UKIO/UBIG, i guess they are indeed insane. I guess I should have already known this given how they let Mrs NMH finances operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.