Mackay: Tan saved Cardiff from Rangers style meltdown

Cardiff City boss Malky Mackay admits the Bluebirds might have been plunged into a Rangers-type meltdown but for the backing of Vincent Tan.

Rangers have had to re-form and start again in the fourth tier of Scottish football after being left with crippling debts.

It’s a situation not uncommon in English football either with well-supported clubs like Portsmouth – Cardiff’s FA Cup final opponents in 2008 being taken to the brink on more than occasion – and Leeds having to recover from financial turmoil.

And Mackay accepts that Cardiff would also be facing an uncertain future but for the largesse of billionaire backer Tan, the Malaysian investor who bankrolled the Bluebirds’ summer spending spree.


“I look at Rangers and I can’t believe the situation there for a club of that size,” said former Scotland star Mackay, a son of Glasgow who played for both Queen’s Park and Celtic in the city.

“That’s why everyone should realise, not just at Cardiff but in the whole of football, how quickly a club can go to the wall now because of the financial situation in the world.

“I have great admiration for our owners who have backed us and all the staff at the club who are trying to do their best for Cardiff City.”

Mackay has lavished almost £10m in transfer fees this summer, bringing in 10 new players to raise expectations among the Bluebirds faithful.

Wales star Craig Bellamy, South Korea’s Olympic hero Kim Bo-Kyung, strikers Nicky Maynard and Heidar Helguson and widemen Craig Noone and Tommy Smith have provided Cardiff with real firepower and Mackay with an embarrassment of attacking riches.

Despite an indifferent start of four points from three games, the manner that Wolves were brushed aside 3-1 at the Cardiff City Stadium in the final game before the international break suggests Mackay’s men will be real players in the Championship this season.

Yet Tan’s rebranding plans have left a bitter taste in the mouth of some supporters, with Cardiff now wearing red shirts instead of their traditional blue at home while sporting a new badge.

Some fans were upset by the break in tradition and received refunds after buying season tickets.

Mackay said he understood those concerns but admits the alternative was bleak.

And he insists that, whatever people might think, Tan is only trying to do what is best for the club.

“If you look at the amount of investment the owner has now put in the club – from the day that he started to today – you have to say he has got the best interests of the club at heart,” said Mackay.

“You just have to look around the country and see who is putting money into football clubs.

“They are few and far between other than the big hitters that you see on TV.

“It’s been good that I have been in constant touch every week with TG, our chairman, and Vincent, who I have had regular conversations with.

“These are the two guys who keep the club going. They could have walked away, but they didn’t – and they have not taken a penny out of the football club.”

Businessman Tan has been keen to forge strong links between Cardiff and his native Malaysia.

The new red kit is believed to signify good luck in Asia and the Dragon symbol that dominates the new badge is also believed to be fortuitous.

Last Sunday’s clash with Wolves was shown live on TV in Malaysia, as will all home games this term in a bid to swell interest in the club there.

Mackay accepted the changes were bound to alienate some, but he believes the positives for the club outweigh any negatives.

“There has obviously been a lot of controversy surrounding the rebranding this summer,” he said.

“But you have to look at both sides of it and see what the owner is doing for this club as well.

“The amount of effort which has been put in is to try and make this club the best it can be.

“There’s actually a lot of staff at this club doing that who I would say don’t get any credit. But they work tirelessly.

“There’s a lot of Welsh people among the office staff who support the club with a passion and are also trying to make the club the best it can be.”

As well as funding this summer’s transfer activities, Tan’s intervention saw star midfielder Peter Whittingham – who scored a hat-trick against Wolves – sign a new deal.

Whittingham committed himself to the club after what Mackay described as “aggressive” bids were received from Premier League pair Fulham and West Brom.

Tan has also promised to turn his current investment in the club into equity and seize full control once a deal can be reached to pay off loan notes taken out from the Langston Corporation during Sam Hammam’s tenure in charge.

There are also plans for the club to build a new training ground in the city and Mackay believes the future is bright.

“I’m hoping that I will soon be here discussing and showing everyone plans for our new training ground,” he added.

“Vincent has vouched that there is £10m there to give the football club.

“That’s not a figure that we are just throwing out there, that’s £10m to provide something that will become a legacy for this football club.

“We’ve already got a stadium to be proud of and we are going to have a fantastic training ground to be proud of.”



Read More http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballna ... z25wM8faPx

All sounds very positive I must say, onwards and upwards for Cardiff City FC

I LOVE POSITIVE POSTS!!!

MAKE THIS A STICKY

Yes tan did save us but when MM got asked in a meeting over the season ticket returns would he let celtic change colour and badge and say the same things he has about us over it if he was there manager, he laughed and refused to comment when pulled up on it again, so sorry to be the bad news doomer but he will say what hes told to and do as hes allowed to just like anybody employed.

Not many BIG thank you`s on here ? So one from me

I asked Malky in a meeting a few weeks ago what would of happened if Tan had not lent us the money, Malky's answer prob one division lower for us.
The squad we have now is fantastic and I have nothing but praise for it, but the main thing for me will be, is when we are debt FREE, not £90 odd mill in debt.

IF Tan turns the debt into equity, i would go and give him a big kiss, literally!!

until then....judgement is reserved.

£24 million or £90 million makes no difference really does it annis ....the big difference as i see it is that sam could not make us debt free as he could not afford it at £24 million ..but tan can and will at over£90 million i say over becouse it will be over £90 million when he does it

£24 million or £90 million makes no difference really does it annis ....the big difference as i see it is that sam could not make us debt free as he could not afford it at £24 million ..but tan can and will at over£90 million i say over becouse it will be over £90 million when he does it

I disagree Steve, first I would rather buy a club 0nly £24mill in debt than a club £90mill in debt and that £24mill Sam was willing to accept have of it. I just want us to be debt FREE,ONCE AND FOR ALL.

The 2 most interesting little words in that report are "might have"

The 2 most interesting little words in that report are "might have"

Correct and spot on Richard, even Malky and Whitley said it was never red or bust.

DEBT FREE FOR ME.

£24 million or £90 million makes no difference really does it annis ....the big difference as i see it is that sam could not make us debt free as he could not afford it at £24 million ..but tan can and will at over£90 million i say over becouse it will be over £90 million when he does it

I disagree Steve, first I would rather buy a club 0nly £24mill in debt than a club £90mill in debt and that £24mill Sam was willing to accept have of it. I just want us to be debt FREE,ONCE AND FOR ALL.

i,d say your right annis.last season blues sold 20m plus players when we were relegated.it,s not just the fee,s it,s the higher wages that go with those players.our sky money dropped from 40m to around 15m.what pannu did was off load to get the club in a more stable postition.we have had people look at us with an interest to buy.of course that all depends on what happens with mr yuengs court case in nov.it,s easier to sell the club with smaller debts.what struck me was (if i read it right)that mm said you,d be one league lower maybe?that,s not a rangers meltdown is it?if tan buys the debt and makes it into shares then happy days but atm he,s loaning you money at7% so atm it,s your money paying for his spending.the higher the debt -the more beholden you are to him.when you had 24m debt it was feasible to flog off players and whatever else the club owned to get down to a low/free debt postition.that chance has now gone.let,s be honest,we wouldn,t run our homes in the way tan is running your club would we?

£24 million or £90 million makes no difference really does it annis ....the big difference as i see it is that sam could not make us debt free as he could not afford it at £24 million ..but tan can and will at over£90 million i say over becouse it will be over £90 million when he does it

I disagree Steve, first I would rather buy a club 0nly £24mill in debt than a club £90mill in debt and that £24mill Sam was willing to accept have of it. I just want us to be debt FREE,ONCE AND FOR ALL.

i,d say your right annis.last season blues sold 20m plus players when we were relegated.it,s not just the fee,s it,s the higher wages that go with those players.our sky money dropped from 40m to around 15m.what pannu did was off load to get the club in a more stable postition.we have had people look at us with an interest to buy.of course that all depends on what happens with mr yuengs court case in nov.it,s easier to sell the club with smaller debts.what struck me was (if i read it right)that mm said you,d be one league lower maybe?that,s not a rangers meltdown is it?if tan buys the debt and makes it into shares then happy days but atm he,s loaning you money at7% so atm it,s your money paying for his spending.the higher the debt -the more beholden you are to him.when you had 24m debt it was feasible to flog off players and whatever else the club owned to get down to a low/free debt postition.that chance has now gone.let,s be honest,we wouldn,t run our homes in the way tan is running your club would we?

SOme things which you all need to consider before making judgment on VT's investment.

1. The 7% interest will never be paid, the club owes VT more than it will ever be able to repay (unless we go up -at which point its a different story), so its irrelevent now

2. The debt when VT took charge was unsustainable without a major investor. Just like every other Champ club we were losing big money. The money he is putting in now he won't see unless we go up. Whilst he is still supporting us we can compete, if he stops investing we are struggling.

3. Malky's comment was 'without the investment'... i.e if we had to drop costs to try to break-even we would go down. However if VT left we'd be in admin, then most likely liquidation, we'd be facing a Portsmouth style situation, relegation would just be the start, points deductions, transfer embargos and a tiny budget, almost certainly another relagtion, maybe worse depending on what we could pull together in the future and how fans, local businesses, sponsors etc.. respond -and there's not exactly a great track record there.

4. In terms of the debt conversion, this won't happen until Sam makes an agreement with VT. Until then they will continue to invest as loans. That one is down to BOTH of them.

Annis weren't they meant to be negotiating again this month ?

£24 million or £90 million makes no difference really does it annis ....the big difference as i see it is that sam could not make us debt free as he could not afford it at £24 million ..but tan can and will at over£90 million i say over becouse it will be over £90 million when he does it

I disagree Steve, first I would rather buy a club 0nly £24mill in debt than a club £90mill in debt and that £24mill Sam was willing to accept have of it. I just want us to be debt FREE,ONCE AND FOR ALL.

i,d say your right annis.last season blues sold 20m plus players when we were relegated.it,s not just the fee,s it,s the higher wages that go with those players.our sky money dropped from 40m to around 15m.what pannu did was off load to get the club in a more stable postition.we have had people look at us with an interest to buy.of course that all depends on what happens with mr yuengs court case in nov.it,s easier to sell the club with smaller debts.what struck me was (if i read it right)that mm said you,d be one league lower maybe?that,s not a rangers meltdown is it?if tan buys the debt and makes it into shares then happy days but atm he,s loaning you money at7% so atm it,s your money paying for his spending.the higher the debt -the more beholden you are to him.when you had 24m debt it was feasible to flog off players and whatever else the club owned to get down to a low/free debt postition.that chance has now gone.let,s be honest,we wouldn,t run our homes in the way tan is running your club would we?

No we wouldn't....but Tan can afford it and is taking a calculated gamble.

£24 million or £90 million makes no difference really does it annis ....the big difference as i see it is that sam could not make us debt free as he could not afford it at £24 million ..but tan can and will at over£90 million i say over becouse it will be over £90 million when he does it

I disagree Steve, first I would rather buy a club 0nly £24mill in debt than a club £90mill in debt and that £24mill Sam was willing to accept have of it. I just want us to be debt FREE,ONCE AND FOR ALL.

i,d say your right annis.last season blues sold 20m plus players when we were relegated.it,s not just the fee,s it,s the higher wages that go with those players.our sky money dropped from 40m to around 15m.what pannu did was off load to get the club in a more stable postition.we have had people look at us with an interest to buy.of course that all depends on what happens with mr yuengs court case in nov.it,s easier to sell the club with smaller debts.what struck me was (if i read it right)that mm said you,d be one league lower maybe?that,s not a rangers meltdown is it?if tan buys the debt and makes it into shares then happy days but atm he,s loaning you money at7% so atm it,s your money paying for his spending.the higher the debt -the more beholden you are to him.when you had 24m debt it was feasible to flog off players and whatever else the club owned to get down to a low/free debt postition.that chance has now gone.let,s be honest,we wouldn,t run our homes in the way tan is running your club would we?

SOme things which you all need to consider before making judgment on VT's investment.

1. The 7% interest will never be paid, the club owes VT more than it will ever be able to repay (unless we go up -at which point its a different story), so its irrelevent now

2. The debt when VT took charge was unsustainable without a major investor. Just like every other Champ club we were losing big money. The money he is putting in now he won't see unless we go up. Whilst he is still supporting us we can compete, if he stops investing we are struggling.

3. Malky's comment was 'without the investment'... i.e if we had to drop costs to try to break-even we would go down. However if VT left we'd be in admin, then most likely liquidation, we'd be facing a Portsmouth style situation, relegation would just be the start, points deductions, transfer embargos and a tiny budget, almost certainly another relagtion, maybe worse depending on what we could pull together in the future and how fans, local businesses, sponsors etc.. respond -and there's not exactly a great track record there.

4. In terms of the debt conversion, this won't happen until Sam makes an agreement with VT. Until then they will continue to invest as loans. That one is down to BOTH of them.

Annis weren't they meant to be negotiating again this month ?

well if the debt was 24m at takeover then that figure was a figure that could have been wiped out or cut drastically by sales and running a tight ship.as for competing we sold a whole team last year and still finished 4th.i don,t buy into all this we must pay big wages and sign big players to get out this league.if you don,t go up this season and one win v wolves doesn,t make it certain what happens then?maybe tan goes again or will he try to salvage what he can from the club?it,s often said you lose 1.2 a month.since then you have added more arrivals on decent wages.you are beholden to him now when at one stage it didn,t need to be this way

£24 million or £90 million makes no difference really does it annis ....the big difference as i see it is that sam could not make us debt free as he could not afford it at £24 million ..but tan can and will at over£90 million i say over becouse it will be over £90 million when he does it

I disagree Steve, first I would rather buy a club 0nly £24mill in debt than a club £90mill in debt and that £24mill Sam was willing to accept have of it. I just want us to be debt FREE,ONCE AND FOR ALL.

i,d say your right annis.last season blues sold 20m plus players when we were relegated.it,s not just the fee,s it,s the higher wages that go with those players.our sky money dropped from 40m to around 15m.what pannu did was off load to get the club in a more stable postition.we have had people look at us with an interest to buy.of course that all depends on what happens with mr yuengs court case in nov.it,s easier to sell the club with smaller debts.what struck me was (if i read it right)that mm said you,d be one league lower maybe?that,s not a rangers meltdown is it?if tan buys the debt and makes it into shares then happy days but atm he,s loaning you money at7% so atm it,s your money paying for his spending.the higher the debt -the more beholden you are to him.when you had 24m debt it was feasible to flog off players and whatever else the club owned to get down to a low/free debt postition.that chance has now gone.let,s be honest,we wouldn,t run our homes in the way tan is running your club would we?

No we wouldn't....but Tan can afford it and is taking a calculated gamble.

well if he ran all his buisnesses at such an alarming loss making rate he would be down the soup kitchen.

£24 million or £90 million makes no difference really does it annis ....the big difference as i see it is that sam could not make us debt free as he could not afford it at £24 million ..but tan can and will at over£90 million i say over becouse it will be over £90 million when he does it

I disagree Steve, first I would rather buy a club 0nly £24mill in debt than a club £90mill in debt and that £24mill Sam was willing to accept have of it. I just want us to be debt FREE,ONCE AND FOR ALL.

i,d say your right annis.last season blues sold 20m plus players when we were relegated.it,s not just the fee,s it,s the higher wages that go with those players.our sky money dropped from 40m to around 15m.what pannu did was off load to get the club in a more stable postition.we have had people look at us with an interest to buy.of course that all depends on what happens with mr yuengs court case in nov.it,s easier to sell the club with smaller debts.what struck me was (if i read it right)that mm said you,d be one league lower maybe?that,s not a rangers meltdown is it?if tan buys the debt and makes it into shares then happy days but atm he,s loaning you money at7% so atm it,s your money paying for his spending.the higher the debt -the more beholden you are to him.when you had 24m debt it was feasible to flog off players and whatever else the club owned to get down to a low/free debt postition.that chance has now gone.let,s be honest,we wouldn,t run our homes in the way tan is running your club would we?

Where in that report does it say "what struck me was (if i read it right)that mm said you,d be one league lower maybe?that,s not a rangers meltdown is it?

IF Tan turns the debt into equity, i would go and give him a big kiss, literally!!

until then....judgement is reserved.

Now there is no chance of him ever turning the debt into equity.

well if he ran all his buisnesses at such an alarming loss making rate he would be down the soup kitchen.

Tan will make enough from interest to cover his expenditure with us. He''s just biding his time to broker the best deal for the club and himself.

We only need to start worrying at the moment if his other assets start to drop in value or turning him over profit.

When we get in the Prem however it will be a different story as we'll need to spend more to push on.

£24 million or £90 million makes no difference really does it annis ....the big difference as i see it is that sam could not make us debt free as he could not afford it at £24 million ..but tan can and will at over£90 million i say over becouse it will be over £90 million when he does it

I disagree Steve, first I would rather buy a club 0nly £24mill in debt than a club £90mill in debt and that £24mill Sam was willing to accept have of it. I just want us to be debt FREE,ONCE AND FOR ALL.

i,d say your right annis.last season blues sold 20m plus players when we were relegated.it,s not just the fee,s it,s the higher wages that go with those players.our sky money dropped from 40m to around 15m.what pannu did was off load to get the club in a more stable postition.we have had people look at us with an interest to buy.of course that all depends on what happens with mr yuengs court case in nov.it,s easier to sell the club with smaller debts.what struck me was (if i read it right)that mm said you,d be one league lower maybe?that,s not a rangers meltdown is it?if tan buys the debt and makes it into shares then happy days but atm he,s loaning you money at7% so atm it,s your money paying for his spending.the higher the debt -the more beholden you are to him.when you had 24m debt it was feasible to flog off players and whatever else the club owned to get down to a low/free debt postition.that chance has now gone.let,s be honest,we wouldn,t run our homes in the way tan is running your club would we?

Where in that report does it say "what struck me was (if i read it right)that mm said you,d be one league lower maybe?that,s not a rangers meltdown is it?

jinks i said if i read that right as i thought i,d read it in the report.apols as it was in annis,s post.i,v no reason not to believe the post though.i,m pretty crap on these things jinks,hence no paragraphs etc.k.r.o

well if he ran all his buisnesses at such an alarming loss making rate he would be down the soup kitchen.

Tan will make enough from interest to cover his expenditure with us. He''s just biding his time to broker the best deal for the club and himself.

We only need to start worrying at the moment if his other assets start to drop in value or turning him over profit.

When we get in the Prem however it will be a different story as we'll need to spend more to push on.

hope you are right .could be messy if you,re not.only time will tell now

Cardiff City boss Malky Mackay admits the Bluebirds might have been plunged into a Rangers-type meltdown but for the backing of Vincent Tan.

Rangers have had to re-form and start again in the fourth tier of Scottish football after being left with crippling debts.

It’s a situation not uncommon in English football either with well-supported clubs like Portsmouth – Cardiff’s FA Cup final opponents in 2008 being taken to the brink on more than occasion – and Leeds having to recover from financial turmoil.

And Mackay accepts that Cardiff would also be facing an uncertain future but for the largesse of billionaire backer Tan, the Malaysian investor who bankrolled the Bluebirds’ summer spending spree.


“I look at Rangers and I can’t believe the situation there for a club of that size,” said former Scotland star Mackay, a son of Glasgow who played for both Queen’s Park and Celtic in the city.

“That’s why everyone should realise, not just at Cardiff but in the whole of football, how quickly a club can go to the wall now because of the financial situation in the world.

“I have great admiration for our owners who have backed us and all the staff at the club who are trying to do their best for Cardiff City.”

Mackay has lavished almost £10m in transfer fees this summer, bringing in 10 new players to raise expectations among the Bluebirds faithful.

Wales star Craig Bellamy, South Korea’s Olympic hero Kim Bo-Kyung, strikers Nicky Maynard and Heidar Helguson and widemen Craig Noone and Tommy Smith have provided Cardiff with real firepower and Mackay with an embarrassment of attacking riches.

Despite an indifferent start of four points from three games, the manner that Wolves were brushed aside 3-1 at the Cardiff City Stadium in the final game before the international break suggests Mackay’s men will be real players in the Championship this season.

Yet Tan’s rebranding plans have left a bitter taste in the mouth of some supporters, with Cardiff now wearing red shirts instead of their traditional blue at home while sporting a new badge.

Some fans were upset by the break in tradition and received refunds after buying season tickets.

Mackay said he understood those concerns but admits the alternative was bleak.

And he insists that, whatever people might think, Tan is only trying to do what is best for the club.

“If you look at the amount of investment the owner has now put in the club – from the day that he started to today – you have to say he has got the best interests of the club at heart,” said Mackay.

“You just have to look around the country and see who is putting money into football clubs.

“They are few and far between other than the big hitters that you see on TV.

“It’s been good that I have been in constant touch every week with TG, our chairman, and Vincent, who I have had regular conversations with.

“These are the two guys who keep the club going. They could have walked away, but they didn’t – and they have not taken a penny out of the football club.”

Businessman Tan has been keen to forge strong links between Cardiff and his native Malaysia.

The new red kit is believed to signify good luck in Asia and the Dragon symbol that dominates the new badge is also believed to be fortuitous.

Last Sunday’s clash with Wolves was shown live on TV in Malaysia, as will all home games this term in a bid to swell interest in the club there.

Mackay accepted the changes were bound to alienate some, but he believes the positives for the club outweigh any negatives.

“There has obviously been a lot of controversy surrounding the rebranding this summer,” he said.

“But you have to look at both sides of it and see what the owner is doing for this club as well.

“The amount of effort which has been put in is to try and make this club the best it can be.

“There’s actually a lot of staff at this club doing that who I would say don’t get any credit. But they work tirelessly.

“There’s a lot of Welsh people among the office staff who support the club with a passion and are also trying to make the club the best it can be.”

As well as funding this summer’s transfer activities, Tan’s intervention saw star midfielder Peter Whittingham – who scored a hat-trick against Wolves – sign a new deal.

Whittingham committed himself to the club after what Mackay described as “aggressive” bids were received from Premier League pair Fulham and West Brom.

Tan has also promised to turn his current investment in the club into equity and seize full control once a deal can be reached to pay off loan notes taken out from the Langston Corporation during Sam Hammam’s tenure in charge.

There are also plans for the club to build a new training ground in the city and Mackay believes the future is bright.

“I’m hoping that I will soon be here discussing and showing everyone plans for our new training ground,” he added.

“Vincent has vouched that there is £10m there to give the football club.

“That’s not a figure that we are just throwing out there, that’s £10m to provide something that will become a legacy for this football club.

“We’ve already got a stadium to be proud of and we are going to have a fantastic training ground to be proud of.”



Read More http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballna ... z25wM8faPx

Portsmouth got into difficulty because of their ridiculously high level of spending funded by borrowings whilst in the Premier , together with some "dodgy" tax avoidance schemes involving their players.Question marks have been raised about the dealings of their Chairman at the time.

Leeds got into trouble by ridiculous spending levels whilst in the Premier (they budgeted to qualify for Europe each and every season) funded by debt , icluding mortgaging off future income streams and selling off the ownership of some of their most valuable players to a finance company.Question marks have also been raised about the dealings of their Chairman at the time (who has been involved in subsequent futher company insolvencies).

Rangers got into trouble by greatly overspending (on exactly what hasn`t yet been finalised by the liquidators and by some "dodgy" tax avoidance schemes involving players.Question marks have also been raised about their Chairman at the time (who has been involved in subsequent company insolvencies).

Cardiff City got into financial difficulties by spending money it couldn`t afford at levels below the Premier , funded by borrowings , including mortgaging future income and the playing squad. Questions have also been raised about the conduct of more than one of its previous chairmen , at least one of whom has been involved in previous and subsequent company insolvencies. Since those difficulties manifested itself in a potential winding up , the club has continued to borrow even higher levels of money to fund ongoing losses and spending on players etc.

So there are a number of common factors between CCFC and the other clubs you mention. The only difference at the moment is that there was an indication some months ago that the increasing debt would be converted into shares (therefore reducing or eliminating the debt) , but with an unspecified value or timing of conversion and with no option on the part of the club to make that conversion happen.

Whilst I am not saying that the debt conversion will not happen - no-one other than Vincent Tan will decide if he will or wants to) , I am just pointing out that the investment so far has only deferred the possibility of a financial meltdown , not (yet) saved the club from the risk.

fact is nobody knows what would have happend, but whatever could have happened bet we would not have been in champ, and in reality could be in div x under new name!! that was the risk, but then some people on here couldnt careless what div we were in as long as played in blue!!!!

£24 million or £90 million makes no difference really does it annis ....the big difference as i see it is that sam could not make us debt free as he could not afford it at £24 million ..but tan can and will at over£90 million i say over becouse it will be over £90 million when he does it

I disagree Steve, first I would rather buy a club 0nly £24mill in debt than a club £90mill in debt and that £24mill Sam was willing to accept have of it. I just want us to be debt FREE,ONCE AND FOR ALL.

i,d say your right annis.last season blues sold 20m plus players when we were relegated.it,s not just the fee,s it,s the higher wages that go with those players.our sky money dropped from 40m to around 15m.what pannu did was off load to get the club in a more stable postition.we have had people look at us with an interest to buy.of course that all depends on what happens with mr yuengs court case in nov.it,s easier to sell the club with smaller debts.what struck me was (if i read it right)that mm said you,d be one league lower maybe?that,s not a rangers meltdown is it?if tan buys the debt and makes it into shares then happy days but atm he,s loaning you money at7% so atm it,s your money paying for his spending.the higher the debt -the more beholden you are to him.when you had 24m debt it was feasible to flog off players and whatever else the club owned to get down to a low/free debt postition.that chance has now gone.let,s be honest,we wouldn,t run our homes in the way tan is running your club would we?

SOme things which you all need to consider before making judgment on VT's investment.

1. The 7% interest will never be paid, the club owes VT more than it will ever be able to repay (unless we go up -at which point its a different story), so its irrelevent now

2. The debt when VT took charge was unsustainable without a major investor. Just like every other Champ club we were losing big money. The money he is putting in now he won't see unless we go up. Whilst he is still supporting us we can compete, if he stops investing we are struggling.

3. Malky's comment was 'without the investment'... i.e if we had to drop costs to try to break-even we would go down. However if VT left we'd be in admin, then most likely liquidation, we'd be facing a Portsmouth style situation, relegation would just be the start, points deductions, transfer embargos and a tiny budget, almost certainly another relagtion, maybe worse depending on what we could pull together in the future and how fans, local businesses, sponsors etc.. respond -and there's not exactly a great track record there.

4. In terms of the debt conversion, this won't happen until Sam makes an agreement with VT. Until then they will continue to invest as loans. That one is down to BOTH of them.

Annis weren't they meant to be negotiating again this month ?

well if the debt was 24m at takeover then that figure was a figure that could have been wiped out or cut drastically by sales and running a tight ship.as for competing we sold a whole team last year and still finished 4th.i don,t buy into all this we must pay big wages and sign big players to get out this league.if you don,t go up this season and one win v wolves doesn,t make it certain what happens then?maybe tan goes again or will he try to salvage what he can from the club?it,s often said you lose 1.2 a month.since then you have added more arrivals on decent wages.you are beholden to him now when at one stage it didn,t need to be this way

It wasn't £24m, it was approaching £60m when Tan took over -its in black and white in the accounts.

We were more f'cked then than we are now.
Annis is just talking about Sam's money, but he left a load more debts on top and Ridsdale accumulated even more after.

Cardiff City boss Malky Mackay admits the Bluebirds might have been plunged into a Rangers-type meltdown but for the backing of Vincent Tan.

Rangers have had to re-form and start again in the fourth tier of Scottish football after being left with crippling debts.

It’s a situation not uncommon in English football either with well-supported clubs like Portsmouth – Cardiff’s FA Cup final opponents in 2008 being taken to the brink on more than occasion – and Leeds having to recover from financial turmoil.

And Mackay accepts that Cardiff would also be facing an uncertain future but for the largesse of billionaire backer Tan, the Malaysian investor who bankrolled the Bluebirds’ summer spending spree.


“I look at Rangers and I can’t believe the situation there for a club of that size,” said former Scotland star Mackay, a son of Glasgow who played for both Queen’s Park and Celtic in the city.

“That’s why everyone should realise, not just at Cardiff but in the whole of football, how quickly a club can go to the wall now because of the financial situation in the world.

“I have great admiration for our owners who have backed us and all the staff at the club who are trying to do their best for Cardiff City.”

Mackay has lavished almost £10m in transfer fees this summer, bringing in 10 new players to raise expectations among the Bluebirds faithful.

Wales star Craig Bellamy, South Korea’s Olympic hero Kim Bo-Kyung, strikers Nicky Maynard and Heidar Helguson and widemen Craig Noone and Tommy Smith have provided Cardiff with real firepower and Mackay with an embarrassment of attacking riches.

Despite an indifferent start of four points from three games, the manner that Wolves were brushed aside 3-1 at the Cardiff City Stadium in the final game before the international break suggests Mackay’s men will be real players in the Championship this season.

Yet Tan’s rebranding plans have left a bitter taste in the mouth of some supporters, with Cardiff now wearing red shirts instead of their traditional blue at home while sporting a new badge.

Some fans were upset by the break in tradition and received refunds after buying season tickets.

Mackay said he understood those concerns but admits the alternative was bleak.

And he insists that, whatever people might think, Tan is only trying to do what is best for the club.

“If you look at the amount of investment the owner has now put in the club – from the day that he started to today – you have to say he has got the best interests of the club at heart,” said Mackay.

“You just have to look around the country and see who is putting money into football clubs.

“They are few and far between other than the big hitters that you see on TV.

“It’s been good that I have been in constant touch every week with TG, our chairman, and Vincent, who I have had regular conversations with.

“These are the two guys who keep the club going. They could have walked away, but they didn’t – and they have not taken a penny out of the football club.”

Businessman Tan has been keen to forge strong links between Cardiff and his native Malaysia.

The new red kit is believed to signify good luck in Asia and the Dragon symbol that dominates the new badge is also believed to be fortuitous.

Last Sunday’s clash with Wolves was shown live on TV in Malaysia, as will all home games this term in a bid to swell interest in the club there.

Mackay accepted the changes were bound to alienate some, but he believes the positives for the club outweigh any negatives.

“There has obviously been a lot of controversy surrounding the rebranding this summer,” he said.

“But you have to look at both sides of it and see what the owner is doing for this club as well.

“The amount of effort which has been put in is to try and make this club the best it can be.

“There’s actually a lot of staff at this club doing that who I would say don’t get any credit. But they work tirelessly.

“There’s a lot of Welsh people among the office staff who support the club with a passion and are also trying to make the club the best it can be.”

As well as funding this summer’s transfer activities, Tan’s intervention saw star midfielder Peter Whittingham – who scored a hat-trick against Wolves – sign a new deal.

Whittingham committed himself to the club after what Mackay described as “aggressive” bids were received from Premier League pair Fulham and West Brom.

Tan has also promised to turn his current investment in the club into equity and seize full control once a deal can be reached to pay off loan notes taken out from the Langston Corporation during Sam Hammam’s tenure in charge.

There are also plans for the club to build a new training ground in the city and Mackay believes the future is bright.

“I’m hoping that I will soon be here discussing and showing everyone plans for our new training ground,” he added.

“Vincent has vouched that there is £10m there to give the football club.

“That’s not a figure that we are just throwing out there, that’s £10m to provide something that will become a legacy for this football club.

“We’ve already got a stadium to be proud of and we are going to have a fantastic training ground to be proud of.”



Read More http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballna ... z25wM8faPx

Portsmouth got into difficulty because of their ridiculously high level of spending funded by borrowings whilst in the Premier , together with some "dodgy" tax avoidance schemes involving their players.Question marks have been raised about the dealings of their Chairman at the time.

Leeds got into trouble by ridiculous spending levels whilst in the Premier (they budgeted to qualify for Europe each and every season) funded by debt , icluding mortgaging off future income streams and selling off the ownership of some of their most valuable players to a finance company.Question marks have also been raised about the dealings of their Chairman at the time (who has been involved in subsequent futher company insolvencies).

Rangers got into trouble by greatly overspending (on exactly what hasn`t yet been finalised by the liquidators and by some "dodgy" tax avoidance schemes involving players.Question marks have also been raised about their Chairman at the time (who has been involved in subsequent company insolvencies).

Cardiff City got into financial difficulties by spending money it couldn`t afford at levels below the Premier , funded by borrowings , including mortgaging future income and the playing squad. Questions have also been raised about the conduct of more than one of its previous chairmen , at least one of whom has been involved in previous and subsequent company insolvencies. Since those difficulties manifested itself in a potential winding up , the club has continued to borrow even higher levels of money to fund ongoing losses and spending on players etc.

So there are a number of common factors between CCFC and the other clubs you mention. The only difference at the moment is that there was an indication some months ago that the increasing debt would be converted into shares (therefore reducing or eliminating the debt) , but with an unspecified value or timing of conversion and with no option on the part of the club to make that conversion happen.

Whilst I am not saying that the debt conversion will not happen - no-one other than Vincent Tan will decide if he will or wants to) , I am just pointing out that the investment so far has only deferred the possibility of a financial meltdown , not (yet) saved the club from the risk.

Of course he has, one by paying off the tax liabilities, two by settling a number of accounts due to suppliers who would surely of joined the revenue, and three by turning the club into a concern that at last seems professional. Much of what Tan is due includes loans that surely would have been called in had he not paid up. We could go on all night about what Tan has done or not done and you well know we are much better with him than without him. Finally,Unlike CCFC Portsmouth, Leeds, Rangers and the rest did not
have a Lender, or a Chairman rich enough to convert loans to Equity or own their respective club, In Tan we have. You however seem to be less Pro Tan since the rebrand and I am sorry to say it seems to affect your views.

This is merely propaganda, Malky is showing himself to be nothing more than a "Yes man" which is why there is little hope of him ever being sacked.

Cardiff City boss Malky Mackay admits the Bluebirds might have been plunged into a Rangers-type meltdown but for the backing of Vincent Tan.

Rangers have had to re-form and start again in the fourth tier of Scottish football after being left with crippling debts.

It’s a situation not uncommon in English football either with well-supported clubs like Portsmouth – Cardiff’s FA Cup final opponents in 2008 being taken to the brink on more than occasion – and Leeds having to recover from financial turmoil.

And Mackay accepts that Cardiff would also be facing an uncertain future but for the largesse of billionaire backer Tan, the Malaysian investor who bankrolled the Bluebirds’ summer spending spree.


“I look at Rangers and I can’t believe the situation there for a club of that size,” said former Scotland star Mackay, a son of Glasgow who played for both Queen’s Park and Celtic in the city.

“That’s why everyone should realise, not just at Cardiff but in the whole of football, how quickly a club can go to the wall now because of the financial situation in the world.

“I have great admiration for our owners who have backed us and all the staff at the club who are trying to do their best for Cardiff City.”

Mackay has lavished almost £10m in transfer fees this summer, bringing in 10 new players to raise expectations among the Bluebirds faithful.

Wales star Craig Bellamy, South Korea’s Olympic hero Kim Bo-Kyung, strikers Nicky Maynard and Heidar Helguson and widemen Craig Noone and Tommy Smith have provided Cardiff with real firepower and Mackay with an embarrassment of attacking riches.

Despite an indifferent start of four points from three games, the manner that Wolves were brushed aside 3-1 at the Cardiff City Stadium in the final game before the international break suggests Mackay’s men will be real players in the Championship this season.

Yet Tan’s rebranding plans have left a bitter taste in the mouth of some supporters, with Cardiff now wearing red shirts instead of their traditional blue at home while sporting a new badge.

Some fans were upset by the break in tradition and received refunds after buying season tickets.

Mackay said he understood those concerns but admits the alternative was bleak.

And he insists that, whatever people might think, Tan is only trying to do what is best for the club.

“If you look at the amount of investment the owner has now put in the club – from the day that he started to today – you have to say he has got the best interests of the club at heart,” said Mackay.

“You just have to look around the country and see who is putting money into football clubs.

“They are few and far between other than the big hitters that you see on TV.

“It’s been good that I have been in constant touch every week with TG, our chairman, and Vincent, who I have had regular conversations with.

“These are the two guys who keep the club going. They could have walked away, but they didn’t – and they have not taken a penny out of the football club.”

Businessman Tan has been keen to forge strong links between Cardiff and his native Malaysia.

The new red kit is believed to signify good luck in Asia and the Dragon symbol that dominates the new badge is also believed to be fortuitous.

Last Sunday’s clash with Wolves was shown live on TV in Malaysia, as will all home games this term in a bid to swell interest in the club there.

Mackay accepted the changes were bound to alienate some, but he believes the positives for the club outweigh any negatives.

“There has obviously been a lot of controversy surrounding the rebranding this summer,” he said.

“But you have to look at both sides of it and see what the owner is doing for this club as well.

“The amount of effort which has been put in is to try and make this club the best it can be.

“There’s actually a lot of staff at this club doing that who I would say don’t get any credit. But they work tirelessly.

“There’s a lot of Welsh people among the office staff who support the club with a passion and are also trying to make the club the best it can be.”

As well as funding this summer’s transfer activities, Tan’s intervention saw star midfielder Peter Whittingham – who scored a hat-trick against Wolves – sign a new deal.

Whittingham committed himself to the club after what Mackay described as “aggressive” bids were received from Premier League pair Fulham and West Brom.

Tan has also promised to turn his current investment in the club into equity and seize full control once a deal can be reached to pay off loan notes taken out from the Langston Corporation during Sam Hammam’s tenure in charge.

There are also plans for the club to build a new training ground in the city and Mackay believes the future is bright.

“I’m hoping that I will soon be here discussing and showing everyone plans for our new training ground,” he added.

“Vincent has vouched that there is £10m there to give the football club.

“That’s not a figure that we are just throwing out there, that’s £10m to provide something that will become a legacy for this football club.

“We’ve already got a stadium to be proud of and we are going to have a fantastic training ground to be proud of.”



Read More http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballna ... z25wM8faPx

Portsmouth got into difficulty because of their ridiculously high level of spending funded by borrowings whilst in the Premier , together with some "dodgy" tax avoidance schemes involving their players.Question marks have been raised about the dealings of their Chairman at the time.

Leeds got into trouble by ridiculous spending levels whilst in the Premier (they budgeted to qualify for Europe each and every season) funded by debt , icluding mortgaging off future income streams and selling off the ownership of some of their most valuable players to a finance company.Question marks have also been raised about the dealings of their Chairman at the time (who has been involved in subsequent futher company insolvencies).

Rangers got into trouble by greatly overspending (on exactly what hasn`t yet been finalised by the liquidators and by some "dodgy" tax avoidance schemes involving players.Question marks have also been raised about their Chairman at the time (who has been involved in subsequent company insolvencies).

Cardiff City got into financial difficulties by spending money it couldn`t afford at levels below the Premier , funded by borrowings , including mortgaging future income and the playing squad. Questions have also been raised about the conduct of more than one of its previous chairmen , at least one of whom has been involved in previous and subsequent company insolvencies. Since those difficulties manifested itself in a potential winding up , the club has continued to borrow even higher levels of money to fund ongoing losses and spending on players etc.

So there are a number of common factors between CCFC and the other clubs you mention. The only difference at the moment is that there was an indication some months ago that the increasing debt would be converted into shares (therefore reducing or eliminating the debt) , but with an unspecified value or timing of conversion and with no option on the part of the club to make that conversion happen.

Whilst I am not saying that the debt conversion will not happen - no-one other than Vincent Tan will decide if he will or wants to) , I am just pointing out that the investment so far has only deferred the possibility of a financial meltdown , not (yet) saved the club from the risk.

Of course he has, one by paying off the tax liabilities, two by settling a number of accounts due to suppliers who would surely of joined the revenue, and three by turning the club into a concern that at last seems professional. Much of what Tan is due includes loans that surely would have been called in had he not paid up. We could go on all night about what Tan has done or not done and you well know we are much better with him than without him. Finally,Unlike CCFC Portsmouth, Leeds, Rangers and the rest did not
have a Lender, or a Chairman rich enough to convert loans to Equity or own their respective club, In Tan we have. You however seem to be less Pro Tan since the rebrand and I am sorry to say it seems to affect your views.

I agree that we are much better off with Vincent Tan`s money than without it , but am just pointing out that we are far from being out of the woods financially yet and will remain at risk unless and until our ever increasing level of debt is converted into shares.

I also agree that without the funds he has lent the club , it almost certainly would have gone into Administration or liquidation as a consequence of the financial mismanagement/incompetence of Hammam and Ridsdale.

The unpalatable fact is that there is no way our club can get out of its financial mess if it remains at Championship level or lower. Losses of £12m a year (we probably lost more than that in 2011/12) cannot be overturned by increasing revenue or cutting losses at this level as that would mean either a 75% increase in income or almost halving our running costs just to break even.Hardly possible when wages represent the large majority of our total running costs and we have limited opportunity to significantly increase matchday revenues.

I also firmly believe , but appreciate it is only a personal opinion (I hope an educated one) , that VT is highly unlikely to ever actually make any money direct out of CCFC . His benefit would come from the spin off benefits to the businesses he owns by advertising revenues to his TV and newspaper companies , profile raising of his retail businesses etc. And that`s just for the many companies he owns personally , there may also be benefits for the Berjaya group in which he retains a substantial holding.I believe that he is aiming just for the football club to pay its own way and not make hefty losses , thereby effectively providing free marketing for his other businesses.
And to achieve the above personal benefits would mean CCFC have to become an established Premier club as otherwise that plan won`t work as no-one will be interested in us and the annual losses will continue.So for VT to benefit , the club will have to as well with a promotion.That is a "win win" situation , but what if we don`t get that promotion?

My principal point of criticism of VT is the way he has been so dictatorial about the approach to the rebranding and the fear that if it is at least not questionned , further significant changes will take place , again without any forward discussion or explanation let alone consultation with the fanbase.When I first heard about the rebranding in early May I found it very hard to swallow the way it was to be railroaded through , taking into account neither the views of fans nor of the club`s directors.

The directors have clearly been instructed by the club`s biggest creditor (despite other people`s desciption of VT he is not the club`s owner , holding only 39% of the shares) to do all they can to suppress fan opposition to the rebranding to date and they have been supported by some individuals whose approach to this suppression can only be described as questionnable.
I was shocked by the first stage of rebranding , but would not be shocked if the plan is to carry out major future changes step at a time , such as further reduction/total elimination of references to Bluebirds , changing the colours on the outside and inside of the stadium to red and even a name change for the club. Is it really more ridiculous to fear these future changes than it seemed ridiculous just 4 months ago that a change of 100 year old club colours would be forced through?

What is the so called "tipping point" for CCFC fans to say that the changes are going too far even in exchange for the loans to continue coming in? I suspect it is different for different individuals but believe that if each and every change is not at least questionned , the changes will be greater and faster.

Keith

This is merely propaganda, Malky is showing himself to be nothing more than a "Yes man" which is why there is little hope of him ever being sacked.

Yep