Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 9th May 2008

Evening News / Sony Centre Reverse Auction

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Hearts' debt reaches £37m after losing another £8m



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 March 2008
HEARTS will announce a record debt of around £37 million in the next ten days, after losing £8 million in the year to the end of July 31, 2007. The figures will be in the accounts for last year, which will be issued to shareholders along with notice that the annual general meeting is to be held in late April.
As club spokesmen are not allowed to comment on financial matters until the legal requirement to inform shareholders is met, no-one from Hearts was able to explain yesterday exactly why the debt had risen so steeply from last year's figure of £28.4 million. The wage bill, which had been around £10 million, is thought to have gone up to an extent, but other costs have to account for the bulk of the loss.

Work on planning a new main stand and office development has cost £1 million so far. Other causes of the loss are expected to include interest to creditors.

Hearts are expected to point in their forthcoming letter to shareholders that the new debt figure falls well within the £40 million borrowing limit which was agreed at last year's agm. Although the cost of the new buildings has been estimated by the club at £51 million, there is no immediate plan to raise the borrowing ceiling. That is because the club hopes to attract external investment for the project from partners such as hotel groups.

Part of the debt will be offset by the sale of goalkeeper Craig Gordon to Sunderland for £9m in August, just outside Hearts' last financial year.

George Foulkes, the former chairman of the club, said that, while certain issues remained of concern, the forthcoming figures should not provoke despair among the Hearts support. "It's cause for concern, but not for panic," he said.

"As long as (majority shareholder] Vladimir Romanov and the Ukio Bankas group are behind the club, the future is okay financially. However, it shows the expenditure needs to be brought under control.

"Receipts from the sale of players should be fully applied to the club's finances. And the sooner we get the new stand up and running, with its additional revenue-generating capacity, the sooner we'll be able to start dealing with the debt. The accounts are not transparent, and they are complicated by the arrangements with Ukio and with Kaunas, so you can't assess them in the way you usually can with a UK company."

Foulkes, an MSP and member of the House of Lords, said he thought the majority of supporters would not be unduly disturbed by the new figures, but suggested they required reassurance if they were to go on thinking their club was in safe hands. "I think the fans will see this as just one part of a continuing saga, but they do need reassurance on two issues.

"First, the New Year promise that Hearts would appoint a UK-style manager has to be fulfilled. And second, there has to be a start to the stand. We know that's not going to happen next season. But if we have a new manager for next season then work on the stand begins a year after that, we will at least have two positive developments one after the other."

A section of the Hearts support has lost faith in Romanov following a frustrating season on the pitch – one which may end with the club failing to finish in the top six of the SPL. Others, however, retain faith in the Lithuanian financier, believing that as he has a controlling influence on the club and on the Ukio group, Hearts' debt is really only money that he owes to himself.

That belief, however, only holds water for as long as Ukio can afford to sustain the Hearts debt. Foulkes warned that matters could become difficult for the club if, for instance, the bank needed to raise new funds but could not find a lender.

"With the sub-prime crisis in the USA, and Northern Rock here, one worries about banks," he added. "Also, for all that Vladimir Romanov has not had the health problems of (Gretna owner] Brooks Mileson, the Gretna story shows you cannot rely on one person."




The full article contains 711 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 March 2008 10:08 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Heart of Midlothian FC
 
1

Guiseppe Tortolano,

21/03/2008 00:11:06
Not really mithered, to be honest. Don't look good, mind. I'm sure it'll all be okay.
2

Neutral Observer,

21/03/2008 00:14:32
Don't panic Mr Mannering (aka Lord Foulkes). But we have to ask, where will all this spiralling debt get the club? Also, what sensible hotel group would trust becoming involved with such an outfit that could become insolvent any day at the whim of an Eastern European Bank? £37 million cannot be far off the GDP of Lithuania where a hospital consultant earns about 500 Euros per month.

It will all end in tears!
3

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 00:19:01
Batten down the hatches for the onslought of Hobonomics. Experts in international finance, each and every one of them. The debt is as it is. It does not take in some transfer activity. There are more questions than answers - par for the course with the set up between UBIG, UKIOS and Hearts.
What I want to see is
- The promised manager with full control of team selection
- The redevelopment of Tynie
- And that's all.
Cue the naysayers and Albion Bar financial experts.
4

Neutral Observer,

21/03/2008 00:28:55
#3 Surelynot (any sensible observations allowed?)

Actually, you hit the nail right on the head since I am an expert in international finance. However, lets wait and see what the reasons are for an £8.0 million loss in that year. Its actually equivalent, more or less, to Hibernian's total turnover so within the SPL such a loss is not sustainable, regardless of the reasons why Romanov, the majority shareholder is engineering it.
5

bonspeil,

21/03/2008 00:32:59
#2 The debt isn't spiraling. As the article points out, transfer fees are not included here. In addition, the wage bill is a lot lower. Your comment abut being "at the whim" of one man or organisation is true yet not unique to Hearts. If you think about it, any business relying on one person or organisation could be closed at a whim... Hibs for example.
6

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 00:33:34
#2 - I will have to question your neutrality. What do you mean '£37 million cannot be far off the GDP of Lithuania'
GDP in 2006 was $54.9bn. And your point about hospital consultants is? Come to the UK, earn £500K and improve your golf two days a week?
Eastern Europe? Baltic, actually. Bit like saying Scotland is in England.
'what sensible hotel group' - remains to be seen. There's a need in Edinburgh for additional hotel rooms. Its up to the potential investors to assess the risk and potential returns. If it doesn't add up, then it won't happen.
It may end in tears. It may not. But criticising people who are looking to make a difference is a very peculiar Scottish trait.
7

walshy,

21/03/2008 00:42:02


£37m debt , debt ceiling not yet reached? finger tips away from reaching it "£40M"

With only £3m left to play with and losing £10m this year, you would think that without a major clear out that £10m loss figure would be hard to get down to £3m by next season.

And if the Debt ceiling £40m , where do they get the £50m+ for a new stadium ? Investors! Last I heard was they would rebuild where they are, so there goes selling Tynecastle and using the money raised to help build a new stadium. Though that said, I doubt you would get anywhere near half of that for the land.



8

Neutral Observer,

21/03/2008 00:46:37
#7 Surely

Your points are well made. My comment about the GDP of Lithuania was not meant to be taken factually, it was made to emphasis that in Lithuanian terms, this is a huge sum. The banking/investment lender involved is Lithuanian is it not?

Romanov is certainly making a difference but as we have just witnessed at Gretna, such benefactors can melt away for a variety of reasons.

#6 Bonspeil
Why would you imagine Hibs would be closed? Its a totally different scenario. The risk for Hearts is much larger when saddled with a £37 million debt. If we allow £10 million transfer income in the next 2 years (Gordon and Bednar) then, even if trading losses were cut to £6.0 million pa over those 2 years, then the debt will still approach £40 excluding the new stand cost if it happens.

9

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 00:47:40
#5 'Actually, you hit the nail right on the head since I am an expert in international finance'.
So why the completely bogus comments about GDP in Lithuania?
Your assertion about the loss being unsustainable is based on what you want to believe. There are transfers that are not included in this statement. As I said above, there are more questions than answers. You and I don't know what the debt is now.
What measure are you using for Hibs turnover? With Scott Brown's transfer or not? Free from any transfer monies or not?
10

Neutral Observer,

21/03/2008 00:51:44
#12

Normal turnover as opposed to 'windfall' transfer income.
11

Neutral Observer,

21/03/2008 00:53:36
#11 I have no interest in your back end Mr Stewart. And if you are a Rangers supporter that's even more sickening!
12

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 01:01:46
#10 It is a lot of money but when £3bn can dissapear off the value of HBOS because a clique of barstewards decided they would put out a rumour and go short on the stock, £38m is small beer.
Have you noticed what the business plan is for the white knights riding to Gretna's rescue? They are looking to build a hotel! You can't get a room in Gretna or Carlisle.
13

Neutral Observer,

21/03/2008 01:02:31
Going to bed now - the next 200 comments will, I imagine be much less sensible.

I close with one final observation that it does not need an expert in finance to see the folly of any business trading consistently at a loss and incurring huge borrowings not backed by assets.

Of course Chelsea have traded at huge losses for the last 5 years and Rangers did it during the Dick Advocat years. However, in both cases the benefactor pumped in their own money to wipe out the losses. It does not appear that Romanov will do that and the debt is held by a bank. Just ponder that.
14

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

21/03/2008 01:03:36
#5 As an international finance expert, perhaps you can answer the following. Why would a business - a bank/investment group no less - fund a project they think is unsustainable? And why would they spend 1m on plans for a ground they have no plans to build?

The fact is you could sell off all of Hearts - players, ground, the lot and not get 37m.

Oh, of course, they're Eastern Europeans! They're not to be trusted, are "dodgy" and know nothing about international finance.

#15 He bought out the major Hearts shareholders and stuck in 2m "goodwill" money according to reports. Then the madness started! Good times.

Many people borrow money to fund purchase, no? No doubt whoever buys Hibs from Farmer will do the same.
15

Neutral Observer,

21/03/2008 01:06:01
#4 Quote

''Sales of season tickets started at 10.30am this morning – online at www.heartsfc.co.uk, by phone on 0871 663 1874 and direct from the Tynecastle ticket centre. The vast majority of season-ticket holders should receive details in the post by the end of the week''
16

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

21/03/2008 01:07:13
#17 So we operate with a debt for a while? If the bank holding it is happy where's the problem? Never maintained a credit card debt? Less debt would be nice, of course. But Chris Robinson racked up more debt with less return.
17

Neutral Observer,

21/03/2008 01:09:33
#18 George Cowie

That's an easy one. They will have personal guarantees securing the loans against the personal assets of Romanov or his companies.
18

Neutral Observer,

21/03/2008 01:12:08
#20 Brian Stewart

'
19

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

21/03/2008 01:13:47
#22 And what happens when Romanov owns a substantial stake in the bank, which he does?

The fact is, no-one knows the ins and outs of exactly how Hearts are financed and what motivates the backers. But then that applies to many football clubs.
20

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 01:14:21
#15 Romanov does not have a majority in the bank ( around 20%)He does have a controlling interest in Hearts (more than 80%)
Neutral is allright in my book. A reasoned debate. He also reckons my points are well made ;D)
How does any capitalist get control of an asset? Hearts faced a bleak future of paying off £20m debts by selling Tynecastle and moving to Murrayfield. Most of us protested. Romanov moved in, promised to keep us at Tynie and a few other thing. And here we are now. It has been interesting and some of it has been exciting. As for the future - as the man said 'Economic forecasters are only here to give astrology a good name.
It's Easter. I'm not a religious man but I'm prepared to say good will to all of us cause by christ we need it.
21

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

21/03/2008 01:17:50
#26 Very true - I mean if all the economists in the world can't even decide if the US is in a recession or not and whether the UK will follow, I don't think the future of Hearts is necessarily as black and white as people say.
22

Neutral Observer,

21/03/2008 01:18:03
#20 Brian Stewart

''Neutral observer my a=se, and I'm a Gers supporter.''

I have no axe to grind with the team you support, that's your decision. I was referring mainly to you reducing a sensible debate to the level of your back end.

Regarding youyr question. Hearts were, in balance sheet terms, not a valuable asset when Romanov took over. They had £22 million of debt and an offer on the table for the ground from Cala to wipe that debt out. They also had investors, SMG for example, who wanted out. He arranged a loan to cover the debt but he must also have financed the purchase of the 70% or so of the share capital he bought then.
23

Aitchie,

Craig Goron (yet to be built) Stand 21/03/2008 01:19:45
8 million loss offset by 9 million gain in transfer fees for Gordon = 1 million profit.....

Anyhoo, the only thing that troubles me is the increased wage bill that the article hints at. These jokers can't be earning more than Bednar, Jankauskis, Fyssas, Pressley,Webster, Hartley etc can they?
24

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 01:22:10
#28 Neutral - you said you were off to your bed. You'll no be an international finance expert for long if you dinnae get to yer scratcher.
25

Anglo Jambo,

Chorley 21/03/2008 01:23:55
The money for Gordon wasn't included, and of course his 15 k a week wages, I think that is about £780000, plus the money for Velicka and Bednar, and the savings with their wages. of course Pospisil too. I know players have come into but more leaving. I can see a new manage being told to cut the wage bill even further I have to ask how much money is spent in administration costs however. How much all these Russians and Lithuanians are paying themselves. I believe there will be outside investment in new hotel plans etc but it may not happen until the work actually starts. I also believe they will be looking to sell more corporate seats in new stand but to do that they have to have a side worthy of this.
26

Neutral Observer,

21/03/2008 01:25:19
#29 Aitchie

These accounts are for the previous year. To August 2007 so many of the big earners were there in that year. That includes Gordon on £18,000 a week.

However, putting things in context, I heard the other day that Hibs are paying Alan O'Brien £5000 a week on a 3 year contract!
27

Neutral Observer,

21/03/2008 01:27:14
#30 Surelynot

Old guys like me don't need much sleep, plus I am taking tomorrow off from the world of business!
28

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

21/03/2008 01:27:20
#29 I think that has to be an error. We have a smaller squad, fewer managers, players out on loan, the really big earners gone from the last two seasons. If the wage bill has gone up, that should be the lead story, but it has to be a mistake to say the wage bill has increased.
29

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 01:28:46
I prefer my narrative at #26 to the technical description at #28. Only cause I sweated it all.
#29 I'm not convinced the wage bill has increased. Gordon was on at least £16K a week.
Remember that the reporting period is for 06/07
30

Guiseppe Tortolano,

21/03/2008 01:31:16
Alan O'Brien is not on £5K/week. I don't think anyone is and certainly not that useless huddy.
31

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

21/03/2008 01:32:00
#33 Ah Alan O'Brien, wasn't he the fastest man in Scottish football for a week or so?
32

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 01:33:28
#34 Neutral - fair play. Sleep with one eye open.
33

bring them on,

21/03/2008 01:43:18
It's all over now. Techincally insolvent, I would say.

#39

Saw the web. Impressive. Probably makes more money than Hearts are likely to.
34

bring them on,

21/03/2008 01:46:28
#29

Teams who have to sell players to survive every year, don't.
35

Newman!,

21/03/2008 01:48:41
Nothing to worry about here. I still BELIEVE!!!
Only way is up for the big team.
Can I get an extra few season tickets please.
36

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 01:51:15
#42 'Teams who have to sell players to survive every year, don't.'
So Hib's selling policy is...?
37

bring them on,

21/03/2008 01:53:14
#44

Same goes there mate
38

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 01:54:39
#41 'Techincally insolvent, I would say.'
Would you really say? Technically qualified in what way to pass that judgement?
Are you another expert in liberalisation?
39

bring them on,

21/03/2008 01:56:23
#46

International finance expert
40

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 01:59:05
#45 'Same goes there mate'
What do you mean? So Hibs, who always sell players every years, don't survIVE?
41

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

21/03/2008 02:01:49
#41 Technically insolvent. Ah, another term Hibs fans have picked up and now bandy about without having a clue what it really means or even if it applies to Hearts.

In 2004 PricewaterhouseCoopers said almost half of SPL clubs were "technically insolvent". In fact he said only Partick Thistle and Celtic lived within their means.
42

bring them on,

21/03/2008 02:02:23
#48

Hardly the way to grow a club. Matter of time.
43

bring them on,

21/03/2008 02:03:40
#49

Never seen the report.

Pretty obvious really.
44

Hobo Harry,

21/03/2008 02:06:32
Nothing "technically" about it I would say......

Arf arf arf
45

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 02:08:58
#47 'It's all over now. Techincally insolvent, I would say.'
I am no international finance expert but you can say a company is technically insolvent. Is that cause you are a financial expert?

Then you say at #42 'Teams who have to sell players to survive every year, don't.' I then ask the question about Hibs selling policy. Your response?
'Same goes there mate.'
46

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

21/03/2008 02:09:36
Read this one then:

www.imperial.ac.uk/business/dynamic/ other/RiminiGroup/report120304/Reports/Scotland.doc

Lots of good background to the terrible state of Scottish football finances. And you'll remember David Duff and Jim Gray no doubt. Few clubs are immune.

47

bring them on,

21/03/2008 02:11:15
#53

I'm no finance expert, but Oor Willie could tell you that much.

48

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

21/03/2008 02:12:24
#52 I missed the story about Hearts now being insolvent. Can you post it please? Also, isn't it a criminal offence in Britain to continue trading while insolvent?
49

bring them on,

21/03/2008 02:13:35
#54

George

I'm sure you are correct.

The key is how much bank debt you have, though. i.e How quickly you are likely to go under, and if there is likely to be a rescue package on the high seas.
50

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

21/03/2008 02:15:03
#55 Oor Wullie was a deadeye with a catapultl, especially when PC Murdoch's cap was the target, but I think you should look elsewhere for your financial information.
51

bring them on,

21/03/2008 02:15:05
#56

George

That will be a real issue in the Gretna fiasco, as it unfolds.
52

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

21/03/2008 02:18:29
#57 It always comes back to the bank - but then we are part of the bank's group of businesses in this case, which makes it different according to the real financial experts who have tried to work out Hearts' finances. Sure, the bank could collapse but then these things can happen to any business.

Give us a break, we also just found out Tynecastle is apparantly a top terrorist target!
53

bring them on,

21/03/2008 02:22:02
#60

George

You might want to talk to Oor Willie. I think he might understand the position a wee bit better than you seem to.
54

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 02:22:06
#55 The Oor Willie defence. Fantastic.
So a cartoon figure from the 1950's can determine that a company is 'technicaly insolvent'
55

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 02:26:10
#61 Merry Easter ya radge
56

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

21/03/2008 02:28:28
#61 I'm not in the habit of making conversation with boys sitting on buckets.

It's a shame that blogs weren't invented in the David Duff era. Still, you lot nearly went belly up and survived. Hearts are not at that stage yet. We were a couple of years ago until we were bought by Romanov. Most Hibees accept TF will sell sooner rather than later. Chances are the buyer will take out a loan to find the purchase. He'll promise investment to get the fans on his side. And so it starts...
57

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 02:29:05
#ALL Rip it up and start again
58

bring them on,

21/03/2008 02:32:23
#63

Merry Easter to you, too.

BTW, I'm a neutral
59

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

21/03/2008 02:38:21
The Herald at least got quotes from actual finace people - PWC. Summary seems to be no cause for concern due to unique structure but bad stuff can happen but Tynecastle should see the club survive:

"It is not an ideal model but the ownership structure is routed through Ukio Bankas and supported by the major shareholder.

"As long as he is prepared to do that, there is no real cause for concern but this season, with Gretna, we have already seen what happens when that support network falls away. Then you have real problems.

"In the context of Hearts and Gretna, Gretna have no real infrastructure, no SPL-compliant stadium and no fanbase. Hearts at least have the asset of the stadium, and the land on which it is built, therefore something can be done to restructure in the worst-case scenario.

Of the stadium:

"It has to be remembered that £51m is the total projected cost of the entire redevelopment, and much of that will be subsidised," said Glen. "Arsenal's Emirates Stadium cost £440m is an extreme example, but the capacity has doubled and is already paying for itself. Assuming Hearts have a similar strategy in place, Tynecastle can be a success."

Maybe if the Hibees just waking up in their bunk beds read this first we'll be spared the Hineeconomists.


60

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 02:39:50
#66 Neutral in what way? Your as neutral as Ph7
Ripitupandstartagain
61

bring them on,

21/03/2008 02:42:55
#67

George

Let me interpret that for you.

As long as someone keeps putting in equity to cover the losses the club can keep keep going. If he doesn't you can always sell the land and build houses.

That's what I thought.

Oor Willie does give good advice after all
62

bring them on,

21/03/2008 02:44:24
#68

Neutral in that if either Hibs or Hearts were to disappear it would be a disaster for Scottish football.
63

Surelynot,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 02:48:39
#66 Neutral in what way? Your as neutral as Ph7
Ripitupandstartagain
64

wee 162,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 04:28:25
#3
Seriously? "Hobonomics" haven't got Hearts debt up to £37m. In fact the "Hoboconomists" were pretty accurate with guessing that Hearts debt would have risen substantially for this years sets of accounts. Despite the Champions League (qualifiers, same level as your "feeder" team regularly competes at) money, 8 trillion sell outs in a row at your bus shelter, and "the wage bill being cut" (no employing a manager for the team is working well imo) the Hoboconomists turned out to have a better guess than the Jambos who don't seem to think being close to Leeds style debt is going to be a problem, either now or in the future.

As a Hoboconomist myself, I'm going to have a stab at next years debt touching £45m pound. Or about 5 years income. So the debt can be cleared nae bother as long as your club just keeps not spending any money at all, and Hearts fans keep buying STs to watch a team which is trying to emulate Queens Park and become completely amateur (to fit in with the running of the club).

In fairness, you lived the dream of getting skelped by AEK Athens in July...
65

bonspeil,

21/03/2008 04:41:24
#72 I don't know. I lived the dream at Hampden the previous May. Not to mention the 2nd place in the league - how many years since the OF had been split again?

So the fact that actual economists say there's not much cause for concern unless a series of mishaps or events, which could befall any number of clubs, happen doesn't register with you?
66

bring them on,

21/03/2008 04:45:00
#72

When the flats are built on Tyncastle Avenue, season ticket holders will get first right of refusal on them.

Seems fair enough
67

bonspeil,

21/03/2008 04:56:03
#72 You also fail to factor in the fact that the new stand and associated businesses are an integral part of the business plan and that income from that is expected to contribute to the clearing of the debt. Yes, it's at the planning stage. Yes, planning could be rejected, although somewhat unlikely in a city that welcomes investment, needs more hotel rooms and could do with some regeneration of the specific area. They'd need some very good reasons anyhow.

If this doesn't go through - then that's when alarm bells should ring. But unless you have a crystal ball you don't know it won't. And your "Hoboconomics" fail to take this essential element into account.
68

bring them on,

21/03/2008 05:05:43
#75

Whose is going to sit in the stand?
69

bonspeil,

21/03/2008 05:15:03
Well, the new stand means an increase of about 5,000 seats. Definitely fillable. One thing Romanov has got right is the marketing - it's been excellent and the campaigns to get kids in has been successful and commended by the SFA.

Plus, since there has been a waiting list for season tickets in recent seasons, it's fair to assume that another 2,000 or so seasons could be sold if the team improves - or even if it doesn't.

After all, Hearts fans have a very strong core support (by Scottish standards) who have stuck with the club through a series of dodgy owners and the ups and downs of recent seasons. There is no evidence that they will desert the club en masse.

At least six games a year will get full capacity, if Hibs fans decide to turn up.

At the end of the day, good businesses are scalable, ie have room to grow. Attracting 5,000 paying customers is a marketing challenge and will depend on getting it right in the field this time. But a 23,000 stadium is not a big deal. We're not talking filling Wembley here.


70

bring them on,

21/03/2008 05:17:55
#77

Good luck to you
71

bonspeil,

21/03/2008 05:22:43
#78 It's not about luck. It's good business sense. If you get an office with 3 desks, you'll only ever be able to employ 3 people and your business will only be able to grow so much. Get an office with 5 desks and you have room to grow. Whether or not you do depends on being successful at your core business, but at least you have something to aim for.

So I'm all for the new stand - it means they'll HAVE to get the product on the park right to make it work.

72

bring them on,

21/03/2008 05:28:51
#79

Just like the office, eh
73

hibbie,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 05:33:21
Number 67 come in your time is up ..... comparing the joke that is the Jambo's development plan to Arsenals is so ludicrous as to be pitied, London hotel compared to Edinburgh doss house, 60,000 fans every 2 weeks plus champoins league every year compared to 22,000 morons and bottom 6 in SPL in the forseable future, I know where I would invest my money
74

bonspeil,

21/03/2008 05:39:00
#81 It was the business model being compared not the actual stadium and it wasn't even the poster doing the comparing - it was a football economist. You can tell by the quotation marks - a punctuation device used by people who know how to write joined up.
75

bring them on,

21/03/2008 05:41:36
Greyhound racing

That should pack them in.
76

bonspeil,

21/03/2008 05:50:07
#83 Mugs game. Rabbit always wins. Be a better bet for non-Hampden Scotland friendlies than ER that's for sure - another revenue stream right there. Not to mention increasing Scotland's chances of hosting international tournaments and maybe attracting higher profile teams for pre-season games. Even just 30,000 extra people for OF and derby games every season will be a nice earner. Nearly a million extra revenue right there, including increased pie, programme and crisps sales.
77

bring them on,

21/03/2008 05:52:58
#84

Good angle on the pies. Combined with the Bovril and Macroon bars, should be half a mil right there.
78

Richardinho,

21/03/2008 07:23:04
Perhaps some Hearts fans would like to take this opportunity to apologise to all those people who warned them that Vlad was leading their club to disaster.
79

Hugh Hefner .,

21/03/2008 07:25:18
81 - I personally cant stand Hearts and their supporters; I don't like your team either. But as Londoner of the last 7 years, I'd invest my money in a Hotel near central Edinburgh before I'd invest it in one in Holloway.

Still, I could be wrong and i might all fall flat on its face and Hearts will be playing on a Links Park in Sighthill in two years time. Every cloud eh!
80

CBJambo,

21/03/2008 07:40:12
Not really got much to say on this article... but have read it (unlike some), and all the posts from the financial experts above.

Personally, I think that Romanov and Co have more to lose on this deal than anyone else... I think they'll be working very hard to see this development through to fruition.

#81

Proud resident of Edinburgh are you? I'm sure of the '22,000 morons' you'll actually know a few or perhaps even be related to one. Your crass comment is an embarrassment to these boards... like #87 your hatred of the club is noted now jog on.

#87

Were you bullied at school? Maybe by a big boy in a Hearts top? Let it go man, you won't be pitied here.
81

kiwidoug,

22 In A Row 21/03/2008 07:52:20
37 million good reasons for Hearts supporters to stay away and refuse to renew season tickets.

I wouldn't be seen dead in the place while this man is in charge.
82

hibbie,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 08:02:37
#88 nothing crass about it considering what Hibs supporters get called, and after being at the last derby at Tynie, Morons is actually a compliment to the Hearts supporters I could see at close quarters.
83

Bigwull,

edinburgh 21/03/2008 08:09:59
90 what are you doing up at this time, signing on today? away back tae yer caravan ya hobo trumpet!!
84

steve 1511,

aberdeen 21/03/2008 08:17:56
not so mad vlad has all hearts debts in a small company in luthuani not in ukio, he borrowed the money from ukio to set up the company to hold hearts debts,sooner than later ukio who vlad holds 20% of its shares,he does not own ukio, will want its money back,and the only asset hearts have is tynie,have a look on the baltic and lithuanian stock markets its all there
85

JTLifer,

21/03/2008 08:22:50
"It's cause for concern, but not for panic,"....i find Mr Foulkes comments deeply offensive.
Any right minded jambo with half a brain would accept that this is further proof of gangster mis-managemnt and is deeply concerning for anyone who's cares for Heart of Midlothian.
Are any Jambo's still with the chief gangster? I would suggest for, 'support of Romanov', read - better than going into administration. Romanov still appears to be surfing on the back of the Murrayfield issue. This simply can't go on for ever.
I for one, would rather go and watch a real Hearts team in the SFL 3rd Division, if that's what it took.

As I always say on these pages. Please, please, fellow Jambos, do not renew season tickets. It's the only card you hold.
86

Jam Tarts 1874,

On the Rebound 21/03/2008 08:24:16
Oh dear, all the usual economic and business "experts" from the poor side of the city on here this morning.

Everyone knew that the debit was going to rise significantly to the year end July 2007. But as usual, the thick hobos are on here completely ignoring the ever increasing income that is coming into the club and the highly paid players who have left/been sold since July 2007.

The debit must be considerably lower now. I am not surprised that the hobos can't get their heads around the fact that in the long term, Hearts are going to be financially miles ahead of hibs. The new development at Tynecastle will go ahead, if it means that our playing squad is thin for the next 2-3 years then I think that it is worth the pain. Although a decent manager could get alot more out of the players we have currently.

One only has to look at Rangers poor form between 1979 and 1986 while they were spending money on redeveloping their stadium to know that you can't have it all!
87

Jam Tarts 1874,

On the Rebound 21/03/2008 08:33:48
#18. Nothing vague about the £2m, it is there in the accounts for year ending July 2006.
88

scottishcoffindodgerno1,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 08:36:15
#18,Tom Farmer does not own Hibs,he gave it back to the hibs trust.He is a board member of the trust,so he cannot sell something he does not own .He was never in it for the money.He is the garentor for the morgage on the west stand
89

Edinburgh's Big Team,

EH11 21/03/2008 08:44:20
So a summary then would be:

1) Debt hasn't risen at all when all income is taken into account.

2) Still reliant on Romanov until hearts become a serious income-generating organisation.

3) New stand and development complex being built to generate that income long term and hearts start to become a viable profitable business that can afford to attract and retain quality players.

Meanwhile the wee team are restricted to a small capacity - if indeed they can even fill it which was about once this season - and continue to sell any young player with any potential to the ugly sisters through in the ugly city!

This might fail but after years of the monotony that is scottish football surely it is time someone attempted to achieve something rather than accepting their place as the old firm undercard....that is even more unbearable and is why the wee team will always be the wee team and why their fans have more interest in hearts.
90

victorian,

21/03/2008 08:48:48
the appearance of an actual, real world, factual figure of hearts debt as of the end of their finacial year July 2007 serves as a reminder of just how desperate and moronic some of the people are who infest the hearts articles on a daily basis.

for weeks upon weeks we have heard countless tales of how the debt was £40M, from countless plastic financial experts. while the actual debt figure isn't exactly a million miles away from £40M, the fact remains that it isn't £40M, it's £37M.

it kinda makes me wonder as to the motives behind the claims of £40M debts.

the increase in the debt as of July 2007 is of no real surprise, it was bound to have increased due to the level of costs of the playing side and other factors. since these results there have been a number of positive steps towards reducing this figure.

* craig gordon sale £9M
* vastly reduced player wage bill
* excellent gate income inc approx £1M for barca game

this is more or less a notional debt in any case. hearts owe this money to their lords & masters, not an independant 3rd party creditor. the project has to be made to work in order for ubig to see a return on their money.

the idea that hearts are somehow being strip mined as a result of mounting interest payments is not right. there is only a finite amount of turnover coming into the club which has to go on wages, policing, utilities, etc etc. interest charges to ukio or ubig are paper debts, there is no hard cash being transferred. there isn't anything left to pay ubig out of the annual turnover.

the only way romanov and his business group can see their money back now is to make a success of the club and the development.

91

Between the lines,

Falkirk 21/03/2008 09:00:14
So the "Third Force" in Scottish football is now fast becoming a "Sub Prime" basket case as well. Meanwhile the Edinburgh tw*ts that support them sit on their hands as usual and wait for the Lithuanian madman to change things - get real guys, the Tarts are going down the pan fast!

I thought the whole situation was summed up the other night on Reporting Scotland when several Hearts players stated that they were striving to finish in the "top 6" of the SPL this season - says it all really.
92

TommyTommy,

21/03/2008 09:03:58
Hearts fans are not fools.

The money goes out of Hearts to Lithuania.
Nothing comes in to Hearts.

A £40 million debt with nothing to show for it.

Only the blinkered believe all is well.
93

Big Rob the Hibbie,

21/03/2008 09:05:29
#98

Regarding the sale of Gordon, do you think that money has gone to Hearts or ended up elsewhere?

George Foulkes doesn't seem sure according to this BBC article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/heart_of_midlothian/7307966.stm

This quote taken from that article

Foulkes added: "But also, part of the problem is that during the course of the year with the players.

"Some of them are on Hearts' books and some are on the books of Kaunas - with their salaries and wages paid by Kaunas - but the players on loan to Hearts. That's causing complications.

"We've also been unsure about what has happened to the receipts of the players who have been sold.

"Not the ones who are Kaunas players, but those such as Craig Gordon."

Makes you wonder just where the cash has gone does it not?
94

TommyTommy,

21/03/2008 09:08:16
98

They haven't spent any money.

They have taken money OUT of Hearts.

If you seriously believe that nonsense youve spouted you can put our mind to rest by detailing what the debt has purchased.

Give us a serious answer and refrain from your tirade of abuse.

Thanks
95

bring them on,

21/03/2008 09:12:45
#101

Maybe the pieman took it?
96

victorian,

21/03/2008 09:13:27
#101 big rob, why do you think he's "unsure"?

i'll tell you why. it's because he isn't party to the financial comings and goings at hearts, just the same as me, you and everyone else.

do you know of any football clubs who publicly disclose what has happened to a financial transaction like this outwith the publication of their annual returns?

we will know when the next results are published and not before.
97

TommyTommy,

21/03/2008 09:15:39
What has the debt purchased.?

Where has all the money gone?

WHATMG?
98

victorian,

21/03/2008 09:16:46
#102 tommytommy, sorry i can't enter into a debate with someone like you who says at post #100 that the debt is £40M when the actual figure has been announced at £37M.

can you actually read tommytommy?

is £37M the same as £40M?

you have no credibility here, i'm not the only one who thinks so.

witter away to your hearts content, i wont be replying again.
99

Big Rob the Hibbie,

21/03/2008 09:19:10
#104

I accept that, but still think he will have more idea than you or I.

So in saying that you are implying you haven't a clue either but are "hoping" the Craig Gordon money has gone to Hearts.