Naive and Blindly Loyal

[Gigolo-Aunt]

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

 

LEADER!

 

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

 

LEADER!

 

 

 

 

 

[prisoner]

I don't understand your last sentence but in debt for equity swaps and debt forgiveness he (or companies he owns or controls) have invested (or thrown away) between ?30m and ?40m.

 

The club's debt, following the latest debt for equity swap will be around ?30m, about ?10m more than when he bought into the club.

 

So even taking acount the (in real terms) modest increase in debt he is ?20 - ?30m down.

 

Perhaps you could enlighten us on previous owners' investment records.

 

Is this answer meant to enlighten us as to how much he has invested? It just seem to be about the clubs debt... Hmmm.

 

So, even roughly, how much money has he actually, personally invested in the club?

 

As far as i can see, he has spent a lot of money and now the club has to pay for his spending.

 

And surely you don't need me to tell you our previous owners investment records as you are so sure that the VR's investment is better than all the previous owners put together.

 

This should be interesting... assuming it actually gets answered...

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

Two things... this tramp is scarily obsessed with our history.

 

And anyone else think this particular part of that hilarious post is similar to the speech in Trainspotting?

 

 

And how much of it is simply made up?! Tartan shorts, Vlad in the dugout etc etc?! I must have missed all that! What a load of bollocks.

[marshallschunkychicken]

Is this answer meant to enlighten us as to how much he has invested? It just seem to be about the clubs debt... Hmmm.

 

So, even roughly, how much money has he actually, personally invested in the club?

 

As far as i can see, he has spent a lot of money and now the club has to pay for his spending.

 

And surely you don't need me to tell you our previous owners investment records as you are so sure that the VR's investment is better than all the previous owners put together.

 

This should be interesting... assuming it actually gets answered...

 

He actually answered your question in the first sentence. Between ?30M and ?40M.

[bighalders]

Shifty - agree entirely with your post.

 

And the seven responses immediately after it sum up everything that is wrong with Kickback. Too many kids who post sarcastic comments or call you names as they aren't capable of backing up their view with reasoned, well thought out points.

 

There seems to be two sets of opinions on this issue.

 

Kickback = near unanimous support of Romanov

Real world = I haven't spoken to a single fan who supports Romanov

 

This is probably the most accurate post in the history of Kickback - completely agree - then you add in the fact that proper football people have also come out to say how wrong the dismissal of Jefferies was such as Robbo, Peter Houston, Craig Levein, Craig Brown, Henry Smith. Much better to listen to experts than the "kickback experts" on here

[topcat]

Is this answer meant to enlighten us as to how much he has invested? It just seem to be about the clubs debt... Hmmm.

 

So, even roughly, how much money has he actually, personally invested in the club?

 

As far as i can see, he has spent a lot of money and now the club has to pay for his spending.

 

And surely you don't need me to tell you our previous owners investment records as you are so sure that the VR's investment is better than all the previous owners put together.

 

This should be interesting... assuming it actually gets answered...

 

It could well be interesting but I think you need to get your head round the difference between "invest" and "donate" first.

[prisoner]

He actually answered your question in the first sentence. Between ?30M and ?40M.

 

Was it answered? So VR personally invested (or a company he controls invested) between ?30M and ?40M? Really...?

 

I thought that he spent between ?30M and ?40M and then saddled the club with the debt.

 

So how much has VR actually, personally invested in HMFC?

[prisoner]

It could well be interesting but I think you need to get your head round the difference between "invest" and "donate" first.

 

I know the difference which isn't the case for a lot of others. All this talk of how much VR has invested when they actually mean spent.

[topcat]

I know the difference which isn't the case for a lot of others. All this talk of how much VR has invested when they actually mean spent.

 

Spending and investment aren't mutually exclusive.

[gorgie rd eh11]

Never thought I would actually post much on this site if anything at all, however the naivety and blind loyalty displayed by some who have commented on the events of the past day is quite incredible.

 

Even after all that has happened since the current owner took over at Tynecastle, and there has been much that has been so incredibly damaging and held the club back from realising the very real potential that existed when Romanov took over, it is quite amazing to see at first hand how deluded some continue to be. There are some who are clearly badge wearing and fully paid up members of the Romanov party and swallow every line put out by the current board. It is true that we are all entitled to our own opinion, that is what makes us different after all. Without going over the ins and outs of Romanovs ownership of the club as I'm sure they will have been debated many times over, there can be no doubt that the club has not made the progression it could have nor met the expectations many had when he bought the club and the main reason for this is the man himself.

 

The club missed a real opportunity to genuinely challenge Rangers and Celtic over the long term from the moment Burley, Anderton et al were removed and that very early promise, real potential and impetus was lost and will not be there again under Romanov. The old line about winning the Scottish Cup that year actually makes more comment on what could have been rather than it being some source of justification for the questionable business practices and values the club seems to operate under. For me, the club will never achieve more than this under Romanov and I sure he is well aware of this. The idea that was being put forward by many yesterday that the latest changes were ambitious and will move Hearts foward in some way and that it is still Romanonvs intention to be credible challengers season in season out is just naive in the extreme.

 

How far has the club progressed since Romanov took over despite the vast amount of money the club appears to have spent during that time? Not all that far it could be argued if at all and some still believe he is the messiah? What's'changed since Romanov moved into Tynecastle? Not much it could be argued again. The club still has a significant level of debt despite some major income generated by transfer fees received over the last 2/3 years, is still playing in the same stadium and facing the very real prospect of having to move away from its home, has achieved no more than say the previous board in terms of success on the park, and no I'm not a Robinson/Deans man, and has little chance of changing the duopoly that is Scottish football.

 

If any manager Romanov employed performed like he has, they wouldn't last a week. And no I'm not a Hibs fan, nutter, arse etc as you seem to be if not following the party line. There are also some out there who should have a word with themselves the way they quickly rounded on Jeffries just to support Romanov yesterday. As the title says, if you believe that stats like 1 in 14 wins, and the amount of times this was trotted out yesterday was quite remarkable, was the only reason Jeffries was sacked then that's intended for you. At least Jeffries had the decency and dignity to refuse the "directors" offer and see it for what is was.

 

 

 

 

 

You're the naive one if you hadn't already grasped that following clubs like HMFC is all about blind loyalty. As for the post, read it already a hundred times before and i'm still waiting for one of them to finish with a decent alternative.

[fordy]

This is a really top post. Well done that man.

1st class post. I also remember Tomy Walker's sacking. A true legend, but ,as you say, fans were beginning to want change.

ps, Good luck PS !! :)

[johnjl]

This is probably the most accurate post in the history of Kickback - completely agree - then you add in the fact that proper football people have also come out to say how wrong the dismissal of Jefferies was such as Robbo, Peter Houston, Craig Levein, Craig Brown, Henry Smith. Much better to listen to experts than the "kickback experts" on here

 

Kickback experts and all the ex-hearts players and coaches can debate the decision till the cows come home.

 

Results will determine if it was the right decision or not.

[Francis Albert]

Was it answered? So VR personally invested (or a company he controls invested) between ?30M and ?40M? Really...?

 

I thought that he spent between ?30M and ?40M and then saddled the club with the debt.

 

So how much has VR actually, personally invested in HMFC?

 

 

Yes.

 

He (or his companies) spent between ?30m and ?40m and rather than loading it onto Hearts debt as you suggest, he has through debt for equity and debt forgiveness effectively written off most of it.

 

You draw a distinction between investment and spending which is I think pretty spurious. Most of his spending has been wasteful and has not represented wise investment but that is a different issue.

[Victorian]

This is probably the most accurate post in the history of Kickback - completely agree - then you add in the fact that proper football people have also come out to say how wrong the dismissal of Jefferies was such as Robbo, Peter Houston, Craig Levein, Craig Brown, Henry Smith. Much better to listen to experts than the "kickback experts" on here

 

those "proper football people" you cite who have spoken out against the jefferies dismissal do not back up your position. those people are part of the big problem of scottish football... in that it's a backwards, closed-shop, old boys network where everyone in their circle always look out for, and back up their own.

 

if you seriously think that people of the calibre of peter houston and craig brown speaking out in any proves that people are right to be up in arms then you're fairly demented i'm afraid.

 

you'll be citing hugh keevins and chic young as expert opinions next.

[jambopompey]

Yes.

 

He (or his companies) spent between ?30m and ?40m and rather than loading it onto Hearts debt as you suggest, he has through debt for equity and debt forgiveness effectively written off most of it.

 

You draw a distinction between investment and spending which is I think pretty spurious. Most of his spending has been wasteful and has not represented wise investment but that is a different issue.

think the biggest bulk was from the 2005/06 season, where we as a club are still trying to recover and balance the books as best as we can and trade within our income (a ruling needed now to play in European comps) and silly 5 year contracts to almost the entire youth team, not to mention some players who got big contacts and stopped giving their all for the club

[andydog]

Naive? No, just forever hopeful.

Blindly loyal? Guilty as charged. What else is there for it? Just another way of saying 'thick and thin', and who hasn't said that?

 

Until there is a viable alternative to romanov I see no other way. Some of the things which have happened over the past few years have caused heartache and despair mostly because it began so well and appeared it was going to be so different.

 

If this was the first controversial action taken by romanov we would not be up in arms, those who are are feeling the effects of a culmination of events which sometimes feels like we self destruct whenever we're on the verge of achieving something. I'm not saying we were on the verge of anything this time around, the winless run speaks for itself, I did approach the season with a lot of optimism though. I can understand the frustrations.

 

The bottom line is without romanov we won't have a club. I will therefore hope that this is going to be a successful campaign under the new manager. The past few years would suggest that romanov will do something to make a few hearts sink again, but until then, and again after it'll be optimism and blind loyalty. Can you imagine if it wasn't?

[H2]

Never thought I would actually post much on this site if anything at all, however the naivety and blind loyalty displayed by some who have commented on the events of the past day is quite incredible.

 

Even after all that has happened since the current owner took over at Tynecastle, and there has been much that has been so incredibly damaging and held the club back from realising the very real potential that existed when Romanov took over, it is quite amazing to see at first hand how deluded some continue to be. There are some who are clearly badge wearing and fully paid up members of the Romanov party and swallow every line put out by the current board. It is true that we are all entitled to our own opinion, that is what makes us different after all. Without going over the ins and outs of Romanovs ownership of the club as I'm sure they will have been debated many times over, there can be no doubt that the club has not made the progression it could have nor met the expectations many had when he bought the club and the main reason for this is the man himself.

 

The club missed a real opportunity to genuinely challenge Rangers and Celtic over the long term from the moment Burley, Anderton et al were removed and that very early promise, real potential and impetus was lost and will not be there again under Romanov. The old line about winning the Scottish Cup that year actually makes more comment on what could have been rather than it being some source of justification for the questionable business practices and values the club seems to operate under. For me, the club will never achieve more than this under Romanov and I sure he is well aware of this. The idea that was being put forward by many yesterday that the latest changes were ambitious and will move Hearts foward in some way and that it is still Romanonvs intention to be credible challengers season in season out is just naive in the extreme.

 

How far has the club progressed since Romanov took over despite the vast amount of money the club appears to have spent during that time? Not all that far it could be argued if at all and some still believe he is the messiah? What's'changed since Romanov moved into Tynecastle? Not much it could be argued again. The club still has a significant level of debt despite some major income generated by transfer fees received over the last 2/3 years, is still playing in the same stadium and facing the very real prospect of having to move away from its home, has achieved no more than say the previous board in terms of success on the park, and no I'm not a Robinson/Deans man, and has little chance of changing the duopoly that is Scottish football.

 

If any manager Romanov employed performed like he has, they wouldn't last a week. And no I'm not a Hibs fan, nutter, arse etc as you seem to be if not following the party line. There are also some out there who should have a word with themselves the way they quickly rounded on Jeffries just to support Romanov yesterday. As the title says, if you believe that stats like 1 in 14 wins, and the amount of times this was trotted out yesterday was quite remarkable, was the only reason Jeffries was sacked then that's intended for you. At least Jeffries had the decency and dignity to refuse the "directors" offer and see it for what is was.

 

It's oh so easy to be critical of a, b and c. But what is your solution?

Nobody expects everybody to follow any particular line, but it's an easy accusation.

Had Mr R mot come into Tynecastle where would we be, an old debate now, but "what's changed" - how long an answer would you like?