VINCENT TAN ANNOUNCES HIS BUSINESS PLAN

Ive tld you time and time again why we have a shortfall. We have had the £14.4 million shortfall for at least the past 12 months and according to Tan have an increased one for the next 12 months. The weird thing is why you think that will dissappear.

Its simply because our overheads outweigh our income by the amount stated, in fact it couldnt be simpler.

As for the transfers you aswell as Keith are assuming

a) all transfers are done in installments, and..
b) forgetting about intallemts of previous quarters

What makes us so different from other clubs that we need a 14.4m injection and they don't? Unless you understand this you cannot make any assumptions including it. We aren't the highest payers so what else has gone on or continues to go on? You don't know.

And you mention previous quarters but these will nor be high since you generally only spend really bid in the prem league and if this continues for 4 years then you're still there and income will increase accordingly. Did your swansea spend 14m in the championship or league 1?

Ive tld you time and time again why we have a shortfall. We have had the £14.4 million shortfall for at least the past 12 months and according to Tan have an increased one for the next 12 months. The weird thing is why you think that will dissappear.

Its simply because our overheads outweigh our income by the amount stated, in fact it couldnt be simpler.

As for the transfers you aswell as Keith are assuming

a) all transfers are done in installments, and..
b) forgetting about intallemts of previous quarters

What makes us so different from other clubs that we need a 14.4m injection and they don't? Unless you understand this you cannot make any assumptions including it. We aren't the highest payers so what else has gone on or continues to go on? You don't know.

And you mention previous quarters but these will nor be high since you generally only spend really bid in the prem league and if this continues for 4 years then you're still there and income will increase accordingly. Did your swansea spend 14m in the championship or league 1?

You keep asking me the same question and I keep answering you.

They dont overspend by £14.4 million and live within their means. They dont pay the likes of Kenny Miller 25k a week when our income is minimal.

We spend 100% of our income on wages meaning any other overheads which are normal operating costs of a club is then a shortfall, which the Malaysians are covering for a fee of 7%.

back in a few hours, probably to answer the same question again. see you then.

Oh and even though interest payments may not be physically made to Langston or the Malaysians, the cost will still have to be reflected in the accounts i.e. accrued. Therefore once debt is resolved our P&L will make better reading and I'm sure take a chunk out if this 14.4m figure you quote. If there's non recurring expenditure also in this figure then theres no reason to assume it can't be brought under control

Ive tld you time and time again why we have a shortfall. We have had the £14.4 million shortfall for at least the past 12 months and according to Tan have an increased one for the next 12 months. The weird thing is why you think that will dissappear.

Its simply because our overheads outweigh our income by the amount stated, in fact it couldnt be simpler.

As for the transfers you aswell as Keith are assuming

a) all transfers are done in installments, and..
b) forgetting about intallemts of previous quarters

What makes us so different from other clubs that we need a 14.4m injection and they don't? Unless you understand this you cannot make any assumptions including it. We aren't the highest payers so what else has gone on or continues to go on? You don't know.

And you mention previous quarters but these will nor be high since you generally only spend really bid in the prem league and if this continues for 4 years then you're still there and income will increase accordingly. Did your swansea spend 14m in the championship or league 1?

You keep asking me the same question and I keep answering you.

They dont overspend by £14.4 million and live within their means. They dont pay the likes of Kenny Miller 25k a week when our income is minimal.

We spend 100% of our income on wages meaning any other overheads which are normal operating costs of a club is then a shortfall, which the Malaysians are covering for a fee of 7%.

back in a few hours, probably to answer the same question again. see you then.

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.

Ive tld you time and time again why we have a shortfall. We have had the £14.4 million shortfall for at least the past 12 months and according to Tan have an increased one for the next 12 months. The weird thing is why you think that will dissappear.

Its simply because our overheads outweigh our income by the amount stated, in fact it couldnt be simpler.

As for the transfers you aswell as Keith are assuming

a) all transfers are done in installments, and..
b) forgetting about intallemts of previous quarters

What makes us so different from other clubs that we need a 14.4m injection and they don't? Unless you understand this you cannot make any assumptions including it. We aren't the highest payers so what else has gone on or continues to go on? You don't know.

And you mention previous quarters but these will nor be high since you generally only spend really bid in the prem league and if this continues for 4 years then you're still there and income will increase accordingly. Did your swansea spend 14m in the championship or league 1?

You keep asking me the same question and I keep answering you.

They dont overspend by £14.4 million and live within their means. They dont pay the likes of Kenny Miller 25k a week when our income is minimal.

We spend 100% of our income on wages meaning any other overheads which are normal operating costs of a club is then a shortfall, which the Malaysians are covering for a fee of 7%.

back in a few hours, probably to answer the same question again. see you then.

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.

Carpe.
The old saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing is amply demonstrated by this tiresome wierdo Roath jerk smartarse. Mix this with an obsessive desire to shit stir and presumably cause trouble in the ranks and you get rather an unpleasant result.It's a dodgy dossier.
He doesn't understand business. He doesn't understand detailed accounts.
Not sure what will shut him up. He obviously gets off on his performance so he may hang around for some time tugging away.
The debt to equity conversion should however be a show stopper.

Ive tld you time and time again why we have a shortfall. We have had the £14.4 million shortfall for at least the past 12 months and according to Tan have an increased one for the next 12 months. The weird thing is why you think that will dissappear.

Its simply because our overheads outweigh our income by the amount stated, in fact it couldnt be simpler.

As for the transfers you aswell as Keith are assuming

a) all transfers are done in installments, and..
b) forgetting about intallemts of previous quarters

What makes us so different from other clubs that we need a 14.4m injection and they don't? Unless you understand this you cannot make any assumptions including it. We aren't the highest payers so what else has gone on or continues to go on? You don't know.

And you mention previous quarters but these will nor be high since you generally only spend really bid in the prem league and if this continues for 4 years then you're still there and income will increase accordingly. Did your swansea spend 14m in the championship or league 1?

You keep asking me the same question and I keep answering you.

They dont overspend by £14.4 million and live within their means. They dont pay the likes of Kenny Miller 25k a week when our income is minimal.

We spend 100% of our income on wages meaning any other overheads which are normal operating costs of a club is then a shortfall, which the Malaysians are covering for a fee of 7%.

back in a few hours, probably to answer the same question again. see you then.

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.

Carpe.
The old saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing is amply demonstrated by this tiresome wierdo Roath jerk smartarse. Mix this with an obsessive desire to shit stir and presumably cause trouble in the ranks and you get rather an unpleasant result.It's a dodgy dossier.
He doesn't understand business. He doesn't understand detailed accounts.
Not sure what will shut him up. He obviously gets off on his performance so he may hang around for some time tugging away.
The debt to equity conversion should however be a show stopper.

Summed up nicely. Perhaps he can offer his advice to VT as I sure he can teach the billionaire international businessman a few things about finance

A legend in his own lunchtime.

Ive coveed the treatment of trnsfer fees in accounts. If we pay £2.5m for Kimbo we have to pay £2.5m, whether you put that in the accounts as £750k matters little.

what other questions did you have?

You didn`t answer the transfer fee point. Your initial post was about the level of losses the club would incur in the Premier as a consequence of increased costs in its profit and loss account. Because the cash treatment of transfer fees is different to that accounts treatment , it matters a lot how they are treated. You are just ignoring the difference between cash and underlying profitability of a club.

If we indeed were to sign a player for £2.5m

I disagree completely on this unfortunately and we will never agree. We are going around in cirles on this point

You started this debate on the basis of whether the club could make a PROFIT or not in the Premier. Indeed you reiterate the point at the bottom of this very post.
Profits are not the same as cashflows.The cost in the profit and loss account of signing a player on a 3 year contract will only be one-third of the transfer fee payable. - how can you disagree with this as it is factual , not an opinion.
In balance sheet terms , signing a player for £2.5m will make no difference to the net assets as cash will reduce by £2.5m , but the player asset (shown as intangibles in the balance sheet) will go up by the same amount.

The other main questions were

1)about you clearly double counting £10m of bonus wage payments as well as your overall claimed increased figure of £23m (which INCLUDES that £10m) in your post where you did a calculation of £61m of "extra" costs



It does not include promotion bonuses at all. The figure of the Championship wage will include the promotion bonus. the increase of £23 million will include the survival one. they are roughly the same as the Blackpool chairman pointed out

Lokk again at your £61m post. You have quite clearly included a cost of £10m AS WELL AS the £23m one which you say is the TOTAL wage increase to be incurred on a promotion , so you are saying that the wage bill would go up by a total of £33m. Yet in the same thread you are saying it will go up in total by the £23m figure. So you ARE double counting £10m of cost in the £61m.

2) about you ignoring the extra minimum of £34m in TV income which comes on a promotion in arriving at a conclusion as to whether a club could or could not make a profit if promoted.
I pointed out that a wage increase of £18m for CCFC from the current £16m to £34m would be nearly twice covered by such an income increase.

Firstly im dubious about your £18 million figure and am happy to continue with my £23 million figure given the economic trends of our club. Also the extra TV money still doesnt put the club in profit which lets not forget is the main point here. We are trying to deduce whether it is feasable that Tan can get hi money back simply by getting us promoted. Our detailed conversation, although disagreeing on some numbers, concludes that we can not make a profit thus Tans 'businses plan' is flawed.

OK , take your higher figure of £23m. Add to it the £12m annual loss which the club currently makes gets a figure of £35m. The extra Sky TV money alone of £34m virtually covers this. And that is not taking into account any increase in matchday revenues from higher attendances , or increased advertising or sponsorship money which would arise at a higher level. Nor does it take into account any saving in interest payable on conversion of any element of the Vincent Tan loans into shares.(in 2010/11 the club loss of £12m included £2m of interest costs.
Furthermore it takes no account of "one off" or "bonus" profits arising from the writing down of the debt due to Langston (if settled at £10m , that would be a profit of £17m) or the capital element of the VT loans converted into equity (at current loan levels , potentially another benefit of £35m through the profit and loss account).

If of course that is his business plan which I highly doubt.

On point one I have never disagreed with how it is written on the balance sheet, im diagreeing with the impact it hs no the club. As Tan will own the club and it is my belief that the only way he can get his money back is to asset strip then I see little value in offsetting the transfer fee with the added asset of the player, as it is Tans player not Cardiffs. The loss will be the clubs and any sale of the asset will be to the profit of Tan and not Cardiff - this is where we disagree and we will never agree on this. Again we are going around in circles.

That is a complete nonsense and shows a total lack of understanding of the concept of a limited liability company. If the company buys an asset , it becomes an asset of the company , not the personal asset of its shareholders.Any proceeds of sale of such an asset go to pay creditors in their statutory order of priority before anything left over can be repaid to shareholders.

point 2. Dont know how much more clearly I can say this. the £10 million is not included in the £23 million increase. We will pay £10 million cost of promotion AND THEN the wage bill will increase to around £35 million pounds, in this figure is the projected survival bonus, if we get relegated then its a mute point anyway.

You can say it far more clearly as you continue to contradict yourself in different posts. You are adamant that the TOTAL increase in wage costs is about £23m on promotion and quote Swansea and Blackpool as examples. Then you contradict yourself and say that you then have to add a further £10m in "survival costs" wages , which would take the increase up to £33m. So that makes your claim that Swansea`s wage costs went up from £8m by £35m to £43m - totally different to the total of £30m you claim in the same thread.

Do you honestly not see that you have contradicted yourself and double counted? If you don`t , then everyone is wasting their time in trying to explain this basic arithmetical error you have made to you.

And whats even more clear i the club till cannot make a profit from promotion. If the club cant make a profit, then neither can Tan. If The club makes a loss then its Tans job to cover it with a loan note. There is no value i continuing this cycle for Tan so the only way he will get his investment back is to sell assets. I dont know how this can be argued.

Why is it "clear" that the club cannot make a profit from promotion? I have clearly set out the figures that show that it can , even with the minimum level of additional TV money that would be earned and ignoring all other sources of additional income. You fail to comment on the calculation I set out at all.

The most likely "payback" for Vincent Tan on his investment is twofold

1) use CCFC as just a boost to his other personal businesses - be that through merchandising , TV rights or a general increase in his personal gravitas back in Malaysia (i.e a vanity investment)

2) make CCFC an established and successful Premier club on the field (the latter itself leading to financial success the way the Premier financial model is currently set up). Then he can sell it on , or float the shares in the Far East markets to other potential investors , therefore maximising the value of his shares he sells.

Any chance of some sensible , specific answers on these points or shall we both just go back to our day jobs?

Keith, I have this bloke on ignore.

He is a self professed highly successful business man obviously.
Which is why he has a better vision of our future than tan.

Can I suggest you put him on ignore too?
The site is so much nicer since I did it.

Oh and even though interest payments may not be physically made to Langston or the Malaysians, the cost will still have to be reflected in the accounts i.e. accrued. Therefore once debt is resolved our P&L will make better reading and I'm sure take a chunk out if this 14.4m figure you quote. If there's non recurring expenditure also in this figure then theres no reason to assume it can't be brought under control

Well that makes no sense for starters as we are not working from the balance sheet to see our shortfall, we know tan puts in over a million a month because he told us. If Langston repayments weren't being paid then this would come ontopof the shortfall not rolled in with. The fact he has had to put in a million to cover what we owe yet Langston hasn't been serviced means they are unrelated.

Keith, I have this bloke on ignore.

He is a self professed highly successful business man obviously.
Which is why he has a better vision of our future than tan.

Can I suggest you put him on ignore too?
The site is so much nicer since I did it.

Yet still can't stop talking bout me.... Ironic.

So Gwyn, I still can't see Tans business plan for Cardiff City any where in this topic I've started ?

So Gwyn, I still can't see Tans business plan for Cardiff City any where in this topic I've started ?

And I can't find the topic you've started, where is it?

So Gwyn, I still can't see Tans business plan for Cardiff City any where in this topic I've started ?

And I can't find the topic you've started, where is it?

This is your topic, Vincent Tan announces his business plan.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Were you the short one on fantasy island that spotted the planes?

Were you the one who said that our turnover wasnt fully dedicated to wages?

Were you the one who said that our turnover wasnt fully dedicated to wages?

Based on Carls post that income was 20m. Don't know if he's right but I have more faith in him than you. You ever going to answer the question as to why Cardiff are so different to other clubs when we are not the biggest payers?

Your asset stripping theory is pure and utter nonsense

Were you the one who said that our turnover wasnt fully dedicated to wages?

Based on Carls post that income was 20m. Don't know if he's right but I have more faith in him than you. You ever going to answer the question as to why Cardiff are so different to other clubs when we are not the biggest payers?

Your asset stripping theory is pure and utter nonsense

So you dont want to take a look at the accounts that are published for all to see then? Dont worry, you listen to Carl.

It doesnt matter if we arent the biggest payers. We are right up there in terms of wages to income conversion. We pay OVER 100% of income to our players. If we had no overheads at all and the club run itself for free, we still wouldnt have enough money to pay the players without a loan.

Were you the one who said that our turnover wasnt fully dedicated to wages?

Based on Carls post that income was 20m. Don't know if he's right but I have more faith in him than you. You ever going to answer the question as to why Cardiff are so different to other clubs when we are not the biggest payers?

Your asset stripping theory is pure and utter nonsense

So you dont want to take a look at the accounts that are published for all to see then? Dont worry, you listen to Carl.

It doesnt matter if we arent the biggest payers. We are right up there in terms of wages to income conversion. We pay OVER 100% of income to our players. If we had no overheads at all and the club run itself for free, we still wouldnt have enough money to pay the players without a loan.

Good job we have a billionaire on board then

We dont own his money, he does. He loans it to us at a fee of 7% and secures it against our assetts. Lucky indeed.

We dont own his money, he does. He loans it to us at a fee of 7% and secures it against our assetts. Lucky indeed.

And when he turns it to equity he will own the club and all it's assets. That doesn't mean he will asset strip. Does it happen a lot in football, apart from petty with your lot of course?

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

We dont own his money, he does. He loans it to us at a fee of 7% and secures it against our assetts. Lucky indeed.

And when he turns it to equity he will own the club and all it's assets. That doesn't mean he will asset strip. Does it happen a lot in football, apart from petty with your lot of course?

Yeah true, he will probably keep pumping in £17 million a year to a club that cant afford to pay it back and dont have the assetts to cover it, brilliant business decisions like that is why hes successful dont you know .

http://www.footyplace.com/topic/asset-s ... e-verdict/

http://www.footballeconomy.com/content/ ... ng-charges

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-16226301

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ju ... ship-deals

http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/12 ... -Stripping

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

£15 million.

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

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

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

£15 million.

If that's the case, then what value of his loans would he actually need to turn into equity in order to gain 100%? I'm sure it's not just £9m as there are other shareholders.

Maybe Since62 can clarify?

We dont own his money, he does. He loans it to us at a fee of 7% and secures it against our assetts. Lucky indeed.

And when he turns it to equity he will own the club and all it's assets. That doesn't mean he will asset strip. Does it happen a lot in football, apart from petty with your lot of course?

Yeah true, he will probably keep pumping in £17 million a year to a club that cant afford to pay it back and dont have the assetts to cover it, brilliant business decisions like that is why hes successful dont you know .

http://www.footyplace.com/topic/asset-s ... e-verdict/

http://www.footballeconomy.com/content/ ... ng-charges

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-16226301

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ju ... ship-deals

http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/12 ... -Stripping

Only time will tell but if this was his aim he could have done so without pumping so much money in. If im wrong then I'm wrong but I won't be losing any sleep over it. Do you also believe in aliens?

We dont own his money, he does. He loans it to us at a fee of 7% and secures it against our assetts. Lucky indeed.

And when he turns it to equity he will own the club and all it's assets. That doesn't mean he will asset strip. Does it happen a lot in football, apart from petty with your lot of course?

Yeah true, he will probably keep pumping in £17 million a year to a club that cant afford to pay it back and dont have the assetts to cover it, brilliant business decisions like that is why hes successful dont you know .

http://www.footyplace.com/topic/asset-s ... e-verdict/

http://www.footballeconomy.com/content/ ... ng-charges

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-16226301

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ju ... ship-deals

http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/12 ... -Stripping

Only time will tell but if this was his aim he could have done so without pumping so much money in. If im wrong then I'm wrong but I won't be losing any sleep over it. Do you also believe in aliens?

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.