Whose assets are they anyway?

By

Re the overspending by Hearts – here are some figures …

Comment on Whose assets are they anyway? by easyJambo.

Re the overspending by Hearts – here are some figures that may help put the matter into context.

Romanov took over at the end of February 2005.

Hearts “Net debt” was £21.5M in 2005 and £26.2M in 2013 when the club went into administration, up £4.7M.

As ever with Net Debt, there is devil in the detail: The 2005 figure was mostly made up of an overdraft of £4.7M, a bank loan of £12.3M and Convertible loan stock (SMG) of £4.6M The 2013 figure was made up of £15.6M (Ukio), £8.3M (UBIG) and sundry other items

The “like for like” part was, in reality, £21.5M in 2005 against £23.9M in 2013 an increase of £2.4M over eight years.

Sure, Romanov actually spent much more than the headline debt figures would suggest. That  was paid for by a combination of  Debt for Equity swaps and debt forgiveness, but with no FFP rules in Scotland there was nothing to prevent a wealthy benefactor acting as Romanov did. That is not to say that Romanov was a good guy, he certainly wasn’t. I’m sure that he would face criminal fraud charges in relation to the collapse of Ukio Bankas had he not gone on the run back to his native Russia.

Hearts net debt actually went up more during the Chris Robinson / Leslie Deans period in charge of the club than it did under Romanov.

In 1997, Hearts net debt was £1.9M. When Robinson handed over the reins to Romanov in 2005 it was £21.5M, an increase of £19.6M over an eight year period.   

So, as far as Hearts accounts went, you could argue that the overspending was much worse under Robinson than it was under Romanov. 

easyJambo Also Commented

Whose assets are they anyway?
Auldheid 13th November 2015 at 11:13 pm #
————————————————-
I had already read your post on CQN after you asked Jim Spence on Twitter for his views.

You have suggested an independent inquiry, which I think would have widespread support, but the difficulty I see is if the authorities say no. What then?

There is a thread on JKB, the main Hearts message board, asking whether or not Hearts should issue a statement, but in the main almost everyone, barring myself, appears to share the view that Hearts should not respond unless specifically named by a Rangers official or spokesman. (Hearts were only named by the Record)

It is also Hearts AGM on 3rd December, so I can see Ann Budge being asked her views there. As with Peter Lawwell, I think that it would be prudent to adopt a stance that acknowledges the situation, before the AGM, to minimise any discussion or protest, that could end up as the major story that comes out of the meeting. 

I hope that Peter Lawwell will already have canvassed the views of a number of clubs to gauge the collective mood, and not to isolate himself, or Celtic, resulting in the issue becoming a Celtic v Rangers matter.

One cautionary point re Hearts cooperating with Celtic is that Ann Budge was clearly unhappy with Celtic’s response to her complaint about vandalism at Tynecastle following the cup tie, last December.  Part of her response was to restrict sales of tickets to Celtic and other clubs (assisted by a high take up of STs by Hearts fans).  I don’t know if that relationship has thawed out as yet.  I hope it has, but I wouldn’t bank on it. 

Don’t take my last paragraph as Hearts being anti Celtic.  Ann Budge has just given life bans to 10 young Hearts neds for their behaviour inside and outside the ground. Hearts also assisted police in yesterday’s arrest of 14 young Killie supporters,  who caused a bit of a rammy in McLeod St just before a match a few weeks ago.  She is a woman with a mission.    


Whose assets are they anyway?
I think Celtic’s statement was published now, in part to avoid any awkward or multiple questions coming up at the AGM next week.  If anyone asks about it at the AGM, then they will simply be referred to today’s statement.  


Whose assets are they anyway?
STV Sport ‏@STVSport 45m45 minutes ago
Hampden Park and Tynecastle to host Scottish League Cup semi-finals

Another potential source of funds for King & Co. has gone awry.


Recent Comments by easyJambo

Who Is Conning Whom?
I’m afraid I’m away on holiday while next Friday’s hearings are on. I’m unsure if JC is similarly unavailable.


Who Is Conning Whom?
Court business for next Friday morning:
LORD TYRE – C Munn, Clerk
Friday 15th December
By Order
Between 9.00 and 10.00am
P115/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for orders under para75  –  Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP  –  Wright Johnston & Mackenzie LLP

This is the BDO action against the administrators

… also

LORD DOHERTY – E Hunter, Clerk
Friday 15th December

P997/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for orders under4.16 –
Dentons – Brodies LLP


Who Is Conning Whom?
Statement O’Clock

https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-83/

THERE has been a great deal of media speculation regarding the appointment of a new manager. We assure all supporters that they will be the first to know when we are certain we have someone with the correct qualities required by our club.

The Chairman made it clear at the AGM that the club did not consider there to be an outstanding candidate among those who had applied for the position and the club was therefore considering managers currently under contract. This requires permission from their present clubs.

The position of Rangers manager requires an ability to win football matches and the mentality to cope with the demanding off-pitch environment that goes with being the Rangers manager. This is a critical aspect of our assessment of any candidate during the interview process.

After the two games against Aberdeen, we requested permission to engage with their manager to assess his readiness and willingness to consider the Rangers position. This was declined. We were subsequently made aware by Aberdeen’s statement that, at this stage in his career, it would be best for him to remain in his current post. We endorse that position because moving to a massive club like Rangers is a big step with concomitant risk. We continue to consider candidates but will only appoint someone in whom we have full confidence and who feels he is ready for the job.

In the meantime, we have great confidence in Graeme Murty, who will continue as interim manager at least until the end of the year. The manner in which he has approached this task is a credit to himself and the club.


Who Is Conning Whom?
From the D&P Creditors report of 24 Aug 2012
6.4 As has been widely publicised, the Purchaser was unsuccessful in its application for the transfer of the Company‟s SPL share and following further negotiations with the Football Authorities, ultimately agreed such terms as were necessary to obtain the transfer of the Company‟s SFA membership and gain membership of the SFL. The terms of these agreements were, inter alia:
6.4.1 that the Company‟s SPL share was transferred to Dundee Football Club.
6.4.2 that the Company‟s SFA membership was transferred to the Purchaser.
6.4.3 that the SFA Appellate Tribunal, which was due to be reconvened following the Interlocuter of Lord Glennie on the Club‟s Judicial Review, was empowered to impose the Transfer Embargo.
6.4.4 that the Purchaser is required to assume liability for all football-related creditors, being all creditors of the Company that are football clubs, the Football Authorities or clubs of the other national football associations. This includes outstanding transfer fees and SFA disciplinary fines arising from the SFA Disciplinary Tribunal commented on in previous reports.

6.5 For clarification, any monies due from the SPL were included amongst the assets of the Company sold to the Purchaser and were reflected in the sale consideration paid. It was therefore for the Purchaser to negotiate with the SPL regarding payment of these monies, which was concluded in the above noted agreements.

(The “above noted agreements” were those that formed the 5-way agreement, although the agreement wasn’t specified as such in the Creditors report)


Who Is Conning Whom?
From the RFC CVA proposal

CVA Assets
5.9 If the Conditions are satisfied and the Sevco loan is drawn down, the CVA Assets available to creditors will comprise:
5.9.1 £8,300,000;
5.9.2 The Player Transfer Fees;
5.9.3 Any sums awarded and paid (less applicable costs) to the Company in respect of the High Court Proceedings less costs and expenses of the Administration, or of the Joint Administrators, and CVA Trading Costs;
5.10 The Excluded Assets will be excluded from the CVA, as they are required to be utilised by the Company for the purpose of continued trading of the Company.
5.11 For the avoidance of doubt, the proceeds of all sums due from the SPL together with any broadcasting monies payable to the Company will be payable to the Company but for the benefit of Sevco (in the event that this Proposal is approved and the Loan drawn down) and shall be Excluded Assets.


About the author