I don't understand why........

Turning the debt into equity is dependent upon Langston accepting VTs offer. To settle Langston is only going to cost £10m or thereabouts whereas VT has already pumped in more than £40m.....so what's stopping him reducing club debt by turning his own loans into shares which would be a fantastic statement of intent by wiping out more than half our debt at a stroke? Such a gesture would also win over a lot of fans who still have major reservations about the Malaysians. Can someone give a logical explanation of why this debt to equity thing totally depends upon settling with Langston?

Cause VT can get more bucks out of it, hence why he's actually loaned us £40mil plus interest rather than invested.

excellent point,-------- well anyone? CCFC

Cause VT can get more bucks out of it, hence why he's actually loaned us £40mil plus interest rather than invested.

That's not the point. He has stated that he will turn all loans to shares (equity) when Langston is settled. When that happens he won't get any interest at all on his loans. My question is what is stopping him from keeping the rest of his promise NOW? Langston could be settled at a future date....in one week, one month, one year....whenever.

If he is the sole owner what is the difference between turning £20million, £40million or £60 million into shares ?

Turning the debt into equity is dependent upon Langston accepting VTs offer. To settle Langston is only going to cost £10m or thereabouts whereas VT has already pumped in more than £40m.....so what's stopping him reducing club debt by turning his own loans into shares which would be a fantastic statement of intent by wiping out more than half our debt at a stroke? Such a gesture would also win over a lot of fans who still have major reservations about the Malaysians. Can someone give a logical explanation of why this debt to equity thing totally depends upon settling with Langston?

If VT went ahead and turned debt into equity before paying sam, it would be financial suicide, sam would then see that the money we owe Langston become very secure due to VT,s commitment, therefoe sam could hold out for much more than the £10 million that,s on the table at the moment.

Its about overall control.

If VT turned his debt into equity now he would have a massive percentage of the clubs shares. He would be daft to have such a large percentage whilst there are a lot of creditors out there. He would be nearly solely liable.

Arsenal had a bit of a power struggle. Stan Kroenke was buying up shares all over the place while just staying under the amount that made him have to offer a price to all shareholders.

VT will want full control and all the shares but not while there is outstanding debt.

Turning the debt into equity is dependent upon Langston accepting VTs offer. To settle Langston is only going to cost £10m or thereabouts whereas VT has already pumped in more than £40m.....so what's stopping him reducing club debt by turning his own loans into shares which would be a fantastic statement of intent by wiping out more than half our debt at a stroke? Such a gesture would also win over a lot of fans who still have major reservations about the Malaysians. Can someone give a logical explanation of why this debt to equity thing totally depends upon settling with Langston?

Because when he owns over a certain amount of the club he becomes full owner and takes full control. If he turned the debt into equity now then langston would be able to hold tan liable for the debt, Which will increase their stance on the matter as they have more security and its easier to claim your money back off an indervidual as it is to get it off a club. This may result in them having to pay more to settle this debt .

Its about overall control.

If VT turned his debt into equity now he would have a massive percentage of the clubs shares. He would be daft to have such a large percentage whilst there are a lot of creditors out there. He would be nearly solely liable.

Arsenal had a bit of a power struggle. Stan Kroenke was buying up shares all over the place while just staying under the amount that made him have to offer a price to all shareholders.

VT will want full control and all the shares but not while there is outstanding debt.

But VT is going to turn all debt into shares and is going to pay off all creditors isn't he....so why not sooner rather than later? And if he didn't pay off all the creditors he will still be liable for them as soon as he turns his own loans into equity thereby becoming the majority shareholder which he is going to do at some stage...so why not before Langston is settled?

Its about overall control.

If VT turned his debt into equity now he would have a massive percentage of the clubs shares. He would be daft to have such a large percentage whilst there are a lot of creditors out there. He would be nearly solely liable.

Arsenal had a bit of a power struggle. Stan Kroenke was buying up shares all over the place while just staying under the amount that made him have to offer a price to all shareholders.

VT will want full control and all the shares but not while there is outstanding debt.

But VT is going to turn all debt into shares and is going to pay off all creditors isn't he....so why not sooner rather than later? And if he didn't pay off all the creditors he will still be liable for them as soon as he turns his own loans into equity thereby becoming the majority shareholder which he is going to do at some stage...so why not before Langston is settled?

because as soon as he converts shares to equity he is liable for them. its easier to get money from someone who is in gull control of a club, If he did it now then the people we owe money to would have a better case and chance of getting their money back sooner. if he did it now langstone would demand more money and would have a better case of getting more back. once tht debt is settled then most of the debt left is managable and is loans off himself. so converting it into equity would mean hed own a relitivly debt free club. if he did it now then hed own a club tht is in debt and hed be responsible for them. And as previously stated then we could be liable for the full debt not a nogotiated amount.