VINCENT TAN ANNOUNCES HIS BUSINESS PLAN

Thought so. Def life out there do we agree on something. I really don't think VT would spend 15m a year to protect 6m. That sounds like a gambler not a successful business man

It wasnt his aim. His aim was to invest £6 million to get 40% share of a club that looked to be going into the Premier League. Since then he has had to pump more moey in to protect his initial £6 million and it has snowballed.

And yes I do believe in aliens, I am of the firm belief anyone who thnks we are the only life the the vastness of space is an idiot. we are one galaxy out of billions and we dont even have the technology to leave ours yet.

So VT (a massively successful businessman) has thrown £34m at the club so he can protect his initial £6m investment

Even for you that has to be light years away from the truth

It wasnt his aim. His aim was to invest £6 million to get 40% share of a club that looked to be going into the Premier League. Since then he has had to pump more moey in to protect his initial £6 million and it has snowballed.

And yes I do believe in aliens, I am of the firm belief anyone who thnks we are the only life the the vastness of space is an idiot. we are one galaxy out of billions and we dont even have the technology to leave ours yet.

So VT (a massively successful businessman) has thrown £34m at the club so he can protect his initial £6m investment

Even for you that has to be light years away from the truth

Yes as it is secured against assets, this really isnt difficult folks.

I would rather lend you £15 knowing i can sell your posessions and take it back at any time rather than lend you £3 and probably lose it.

Given the current share value and number of shares allocated, does anyone know what is the club actually valued at?

Its current value is less than zero , as we still have more liabilities than assets (unless and until substantial debt is converted into equity), and the club makes a substantial operating loss each season.

Thought so. Def life out there do we agree on something. I really don't think VT would spend 15m a year to protect 6m. That sounds like a gambler not a successful business man

So you think intead this successful businessman would buy a club worth £15m for £100 million and wipe out the remaining £85m out of the goodness of his heart.

righto.

Given the current share value and number of shares allocated, does anyone know what is the club actually valued at?

Its current value is less than zero , as we still have more liabilities than assets (unless and until substantial debt is converted into equity), and the club makes a substantial operating loss each season.

what value of the debt would he need to turn into equity in order to gain 100% or thereabouts control?

It wasnt his aim. His aim was to invest £6 million to get 40% share of a club that looked to be going into the Premier League. Since then he has had to pump more moey in to protect his initial £6 million and it has snowballed.

And yes I do believe in aliens, I am of the firm belief anyone who thnks we are the only life the the vastness of space is an idiot. we are one galaxy out of billions and we dont even have the technology to leave ours yet.

So VT (a massively successful businessman) has thrown £34m at the club so he can protect his initial £6m investment

Even for you that has to be light years away from the truth

Yes as it is secured against assets, this really isnt difficult folks.

I would rather lend you £15 knowing i can sell your posessions and take it back at any time rather than lend you £3 and probably lose it.

Secured against what assets? Ranson has the players, the stadium is unsellable (for the next 20 years any way) and PMG have tied up much of the rest to cover their £5m or so.

Not only that before now you claimed VT's loans were unsecured?

Honestly mate you are just making it up as you go along.

Given the current share value and number of shares allocated, does anyone know what is the club actually valued at?

Its current value is less than zero , as we still have more liabilities than assets (unless and until substantial debt is converted into equity), and the club makes a substantial operating loss each season.

what value of the debt would he need to turn into equity in order to gain 100% or thereabouts control?

Anyone?

Thought so. Def life out there do we agree on something. I really don't think VT would spend 15m a year to protect 6m. That sounds like a gambler not a successful business man

So you think intead this successful businessman would buy a club worth £15m for £100 million and wipe out the remaining £85m out of the goodness of his heart.

righto.

The idea is like all successful businessmen he will add value to a business valued at £15m. He will do that by expanding the stadium, building a trainning ground, increasing marketing/sponsorship/tv in the far east and most importantly delivering Premiership Football.

Given the current share value and number of shares allocated, does anyone know what is the club actually valued at?

Its current value is less than zero , as we still have more liabilities than assets (unless and until substantial debt is converted into equity), and the club makes a substantial operating loss each season.

what value of the debt would he need to turn into equity in order to gain 100% or thereabouts control?

Anyone?

At some point there will have to be a share issue, because there isn't enough share value in the club to accomadate a £100m debt to equity conversion.

It wasnt his aim. His aim was to invest £6 million to get 40% share of a club that looked to be going into the Premier League. Since then he has had to pump more moey in to protect his initial £6 million and it has snowballed.

And yes I do believe in aliens, I am of the firm belief anyone who thnks we are the only life the the vastness of space is an idiot. we are one galaxy out of billions and we dont even have the technology to leave ours yet.

So VT (a massively successful businessman) has thrown £34m at the club so he can protect his initial £6m investment

Even for you that has to be light years away from the truth

Yes as it is secured against assets, this really isnt difficult folks.

I would rather lend you £15 knowing i can sell your posessions and take it back at any time rather than lend you £3 and probably lose it.

Secured against what assets? Ranson has the players, the stadium is unsellable (for the next 20 years any way) and PMG have tied up much of the rest to cover their £5m or so.

Not only that before now you claimed VT's loans were unsecured?

Honestly mate you are just making it up as you go along.

Unsecured in terms of it being out of hi hands what he gets back. If CCFC go into admin he will get a fraction of that as the assets will be sold for what the administrators deem as acceptable and will be split amongst everyone. If he owns the club and the club is not in admin he may take out as much money as he would like assuming the restrictions like Ranston and the players are worked around.

There are many revenue streams Tan can seize in order to recoup his money, from ticket sales, player sales, sponsorship etc

Yes but the revenue streams are not that lucritive are they?

Secured against what assets? Ranson has the players, the stadium is unsellable (for the next 20 years any way) and PMG have tied up much of the rest to cover their £5m or so.

Not only that before now you claimed VT's loans were unsecured?

Honestly mate you are just making it up as you go along.

Unsecured in terms of it being out of hi hands what he gets back. If CCFC go into admin he will get a fraction of that as the assets will be sold for what the administrators deem as acceptable and will be split amongst everyone. If he owns the club and the club is not in admin he may take out as much money as he would like assuming the restrictions like Ranston and the players are worked around.

There are many revenue streams Tan can seize in order to recoup his money, from ticket sales, player sales, sponsorship etc

And whilst Tan is drainning these revenue streams (which as you have pointed out only add up to £15m) how are the players supposed to get paid considering 100% of turnover goes on wages?

We would be in admin quicker than you can say Roath Magic.

Given the current share value and number of shares allocated, does anyone know what is the club actually valued at?

Its current value is less than zero , as we still have more liabilities than assets (unless and until substantial debt is converted into equity), and the club makes a substantial operating loss each season.

what value of the debt would he need to turn into equity in order to gain 100% or thereabouts control?

Anyone?

At some point there will have to be a share issue, because there isn't enough share value in the club to accomadate a £100m debt to equity conversion.

Tony

At the moment there isn`t even enough authorised share capital to enable the existing loans made by VT and his associates to be converted into shares , let alone £100m.

The club should hurry up and call the EGM needed to approve the shareholder resolutions needed , and this would also give minority shareholders their legal right to ask questions on the extent of the legally binding committment to the debt to equity conversion previously promised.

Keith

Tony

At the moment there isn`t even enough authorised share capital to enable the existing loans made by VT and his associates to be converted into shares , let alone £100m.

The club should hurry up and call the EGM needed to approve the shareholder resolutions needed , and this would also give minority shareholders their legal right to ask questions on the extent of the legally binding committment to the debt to equity conversion previously promised.

Keith

100% agree.

Given the current share value and number of shares allocated, does anyone know what is the club actually valued at?

Its current value is less than zero , as we still have more liabilities than assets (unless and until substantial debt is converted into equity), and the club makes a substantial operating loss each season.

what value of the debt would he need to turn into equity in order to gain 100% or thereabouts control?

Anyone?

At some point there will have to be a share issue, because there isn't enough share value in the club to accomadate a £100m debt to equity conversion.

Tony

At the moment there isn`t even enough authorised share capital to enable the existing loans made by VT and his associates to be converted into shares , let alone £100m.

The club should hurry up and call the EGM needed to approve the shareholder resolutions needed , and this would also give minority shareholders their legal right to ask questions on the extent of the legally binding committment to the debt to equity conversion previously promised.

Keith

No one seems to be answering the question of how much debt would need to be turned into equity in order to gain 100% control

But you're not answering it. Our wage bill was 16m so not all our income. You simply don't know the detail you profess to know and clearly don't understand basic accounts since you fail to understand how transfer fees and interest payments are treated. Yet you go on and on about how VT will asset strip. Made up nonsense only supported by assumptions and a lack of detailed knowledge.
Please don't feel the need to reply as you aren't telling me anything.

I certainly am telling you something you just don't seem to be able to grasp it. The detail I profess to know is public knowledge, I completely understand how interest and transfer fees are treated, I fail to agree on the impact it has on the club however, a notion that once again seen too complex for some to understand.. Probably why he's getting away with it and facing little opposition - people just simply don't understand.


I am sorry but , as someone who has dealt with these things professionally for over 30 years , it is abundantly clear to me that you really DON`T understand these things.There is a further example of this in your next paragraph , which I comment on below it.

Now on to the asset stripping. This is not only supported by assumptions, it is based on the knowledge than Tan is a good businessman. He has already managed to turn his 40 million unsecured loan into a 60 million secured one, or at least will when he converts the debt to equity. So I see no reason that if we fail to get promotion again this year he will start to enter into the unsecured loan territory again by loaning the club £17m that he knows cant afford to pay him back just to get through another 12months - when his previous actions have put him in a position where he can sell the assets to make back his money with no risk at all. This year is a free go at the stumps as it were, if it fails the only feasible thing to do is get your money back while it's possible. This is a tenth of his overall wealth, he isn't going to risk it on a club on its arse.

VT , nor anyone else for that matter , has converted a £40m unsecured debt into a secured one. The monies advanced by VT`s companies to CCFC have always been on a secured basis. What makes you think otherwise?

You compound your misunderstanding by saying that when debt is converted to equity , a debt becomes secured. Clearly you have no concept of the difference between loan capital and share capital. When debt is converted to equity it ceases to become debt at all , let alone increase in status from an unsecured creditor to a secured one.

Our income for year ending may 2011 was £15.94m with a wage bill of £16m can you explain to me how you have come to the conclusion that our wage bill is not 100% of turnover? should be an interesting read

You are correct on this - I agree with you , and Carpe Diem is wrong to say income was £20m.


Keith

I notice you fail to respond to my main points , which was the evidence of your clear lack of understanding of financial matters.(see my comments in the main body of your post)

Care to respond specifically to those points as well?

Tony

At the moment there isn`t even enough authorised share capital to enable the existing loans made by VT and his associates to be converted into shares , let alone £100m.

The club should hurry up and call the EGM needed to approve the shareholder resolutions needed , and this would also give minority shareholders their legal right to ask questions on the extent of the legally binding committment to the debt to equity conversion previously promised.

Keith

No one seems to be answering the question of how much debt would need to be turned into equity in order to gain 100% control

See Keith's post above. Basically it is impossible to convert the outstanding loans as there is not enough authorised share value avaiable,

Tony

At the moment there isn`t even enough authorised share capital to enable the existing loans made by VT and his associates to be converted into shares , let alone £100m.

The club should hurry up and call the EGM needed to approve the shareholder resolutions needed , and this would also give minority shareholders their legal right to ask questions on the extent of the legally binding committment to the debt to equity conversion previously promised.

Keith

No one seems to be answering the question of how much debt would need to be turned into equity in order to gain 100% control

See Keith's post above. Basically it is impossible to convert the outstanding loans as there is not enough authorised share value avaiable,

I understand that but that's still not answering the question. Let me put it a different way, how much share capital would need to be authorised and debt swapped for these shares in order for 100% or thereabouts control?

Tony

At the moment there isn`t even enough authorised share capital to enable the existing loans made by VT and his associates to be converted into shares , let alone £100m.

The club should hurry up and call the EGM needed to approve the shareholder resolutions needed , and this would also give minority shareholders their legal right to ask questions on the extent of the legally binding committment to the debt to equity conversion previously promised.

Keith

No one seems to be answering the question of how much debt would need to be turned into equity in order to gain 100% control

See Keith's post above. Basically it is impossible to convert the outstanding loans as there is not enough authorised share value avaiable,

I understand that but that's still not answering the question. Let me put it a different way, how much share capital would need to be authorised and debt swapped for these shares in order for 100% or thereabouts control?

As the equity doesn't exist it would be almost impossible to answer until an EGM is called. Not only that I don't know if VT wants a 100% control because at present he only holds 34% with another 15% held by other Malaysian directors.

So in a nut shell I can't answer precisely sorry, unless you want to work on the ball park figure of £100m - £15m which already exists.

Tony

At the moment there isn`t even enough authorised share capital to enable the existing loans made by VT and his associates to be converted into shares , let alone £100m.

The club should hurry up and call the EGM needed to approve the shareholder resolutions needed , and this would also give minority shareholders their legal right to ask questions on the extent of the legally binding committment to the debt to equity conversion previously promised.

Keith

No one seems to be answering the question of how much debt would need to be turned into equity in order to gain 100% control

See Keith's post above. Basically it is impossible to convert the outstanding loans as there is not enough authorised share value avaiable,

I understand that but that's still not answering the question. Let me put it a different way, how much share capital would need to be authorised and debt swapped for these shares in order for 100% or thereabouts control?

As the equity doesn't exist it would be almost impossible to answer until an EGM is called. Not only that I don't know if VT wants a 100% control because at present he only holds 34% with another 15% held by other Malaysian directors.

So in a nut shell I can't answer precisely sorry, unless you want to work on the ball park figure of £100m - £15m which already exists.

My (laboured) point being is that in order to gain the control of the club everyone is assuming will take place, he won't need to turn anywhere near the amount of £100m debt to equity.

In fact it may only take about £10-15m.

My (laboured) point being is that in order to gain the control of the club everyone is assuming will take place, he won't need to turn anywhere near the amount of £100m debt to equity.

In fact it may only take about £10-15m.

I assume by that you mean there would be £85 to £90m of debt still outstanding? That is not what VT plans to do. Shareholders can vote to increase enough shares to cover the £100m and that is what will happen.

Tan wants the club debt free to comply with FFP regulations and be more attractive to any future buyer or stock market floatation.

Thought so. Def life out there do we agree on something. I really don't think VT would spend 15m a year to protect 6m. That sounds like a gambler not a successful business man

So you think intead this successful businessman would buy a club worth £15m for £100 million and wipe out the remaining £85m out of the goodness of his heart.

righto.

The idea is like all successful businessmen he will add value to a business valued at £15m. He will do that by expanding the stadium, building a trainning ground, increasing marketing/sponsorship/tv in the far east and most importantly delivering Premiership Football.

Sounds a bit like a business plan to me Tony.

My (laboured) point being is that in order to gain the control of the club everyone is assuming will take place, he won't need to turn anywhere near the amount of £100m debt to equity.

In fact it may only take about £10-15m.

I assume by that you mean there would be £85 to £90m of debt still outstanding? That is not what VT plans to do. Shareholders can vote to increase enough shares to cover the £100m and that is what will happen.

Tan wants the club debt free to comply with FFP regulations and be more attractive to any future buyer or stock market floatation.

In which case he is basically writing off that £85m or whatever that figure with a dilution of shares as if the club was sold it would not sell for anywhere near that amount.

My (laboured) point being is that in order to gain the control of the club everyone is assuming will take place, he won't need to turn anywhere near the amount of £100m debt to equity.

In fact it may only take about £10-15m.

I assume by that you mean there would be £85 to £90m of debt still outstanding? That is not what VT plans to do. Shareholders can vote to increase enough shares to cover the £100m and that is what will happen.

Tan wants the club debt free to comply with FFP regulations and be more attractive to any future buyer or stock market floatation.

In which case he is basically writing off that £85m or whatever that figure with a dilution of shares as if the club was sold it would not sell for anywhere near that amount.

In the short term you would be correct. Of course if we do expand the stadium, build a trainning ground, get lucrative sponsorship/marketing/TV deals in Asia and most importantly are promoted to the Premier League the value of the club will sky rocket.

Also we would be one of a few clubs with no debt and complying with FFP rules

My (laboured) point being is that in order to gain the control of the club everyone is assuming will take place, he won't need to turn anywhere near the amount of £100m debt to equity.

In fact it may only take about £10-15m.

I assume by that you mean there would be £85 to £90m of debt still outstanding? That is not what VT plans to do. Shareholders can vote to increase enough shares to cover the £100m and that is what will happen.

Tan wants the club debt free to comply with FFP regulations and be more attractive to any future buyer or stock market floatation.

In which case he is basically writing off that £85m or whatever that figure with a dilution of shares as if the club was sold it would not sell for anywhere near that amount.

In the short term you would be correct. Of course if we do expand the stadium, build a trainning ground, get lucrative sponsorship/marketing/TV deals in Asia and most importantly are promoted to the Premier League the value of the club will sky rocket.

Also we would be one of a few clubs with no debt and complying with FFP rules

Sorry but you didn't include quite enough ifs in that post, please try again

My (laboured) point being is that in order to gain the control of the club everyone is assuming will take place, he won't need to turn anywhere near the amount of £100m debt to equity.

In fact it may only take about £10-15m.

I assume by that you mean there would be £85 to £90m of debt still outstanding? That is not what VT plans to do. Shareholders can vote to increase enough shares to cover the £100m and that is what will happen.

Tan wants the club debt free to comply with FFP regulations and be more attractive to any future buyer or stock market floatation.

In which case he is basically writing off that £85m or whatever that figure with a dilution of shares as if the club was sold it would not sell for anywhere near that amount.

In the short term you would be correct. Of course if we do expand the stadium, build a trainning ground, get lucrative sponsorship/marketing/TV deals in Asia and most importantly are promoted to the Premier League the value of the club will sky rocket.

Also we would be one of a few clubs with no debt and complying with FFP rules

Sorry but you didn't include quite enough ifs in that post, please try again

Of course it is all if's at the moment as this thread is about VT's business plan. If you don't buy it then fair enough as you are not alone there are plenty of Cardiff fans who don't either (Althogh I'm not one of them)

Gyposplat !

My (laboured) point being is that in order to gain the control of the club everyone is assuming will take place, he won't need to turn anywhere near the amount of £100m debt to equity.

In fact it may only take about £10-15m.

I assume by that you mean there would be £85 to £90m of debt still outstanding? That is not what VT plans to do. Shareholders can vote to increase enough shares to cover the £100m and that is what will happen.

Tan wants the club debt free to comply with FFP regulations and be more attractive to any future buyer or stock market floatation.

In which case he is basically writing off that £85m or whatever that figure with a dilution of shares as if the club was sold it would not sell for anywhere near that amount.

In the short term you would be correct. Of course if we do expand the stadium, build a trainning ground, get lucrative sponsorship/marketing/TV deals in Asia and most importantly are promoted to the Premier League the value of the club will sky rocket.

Also we would be one of a few clubs with no debt and complying with FFP rules

Sorry but you didn't include quite enough ifs in that post, please try again

Your obsession is touching. Suppose it deflects from the pain of Brenda, gylfi and caulker. Going to be an interesting season so instead of all the ifs and maybes lets just wait and see.

My (laboured) point being is that in order to gain the control of the club everyone is assuming will take place, he won't need to turn anywhere near the amount of £100m debt to equity.

In fact it may only take about £10-15m.

I assume by that you mean there would be £85 to £90m of debt still outstanding? That is not what VT plans to do. Shareholders can vote to increase enough shares to cover the £100m and that is what will happen.

Tan wants the club debt free to comply with FFP regulations and be more attractive to any future buyer or stock market floatation.

In which case he is basically writing off that £85m or whatever that figure with a dilution of shares as if the club was sold it would not sell for anywhere near that amount.

In the short term you would be correct. Of course if we do expand the stadium, build a trainning ground, get lucrative sponsorship/marketing/TV deals in Asia and most importantly are promoted to the Premier League the value of the club will sky rocket.

Also we would be one of a few clubs with no debt and complying with FFP rules

Sorry but you didn't include quite enough ifs in that post, please try again

Your obsession is touching. Suppose it deflects from the pain of Brenda, gylfi and caulker. Going to be an interesting season so instead of all the ifs and maybes lets just wait and see.

Stop mistaking obsession for interest mun. It shouldn't be down to me to ask these questions but none of your lot seem to be able or willing to do so.

I'm more than happy with our acquisitions so far thanks. Chico Flores the best defender in the 4th best defence in la liga last year to replace Caulker for £2m. Michu scored 15 goals from midfield in a struggling team in la liga for £2m, and De Guzman
on a season long loan with an option to buy.

Never mind your random South Koreans who haven't played outside of a joke Japanese league for £3.5m