OUR CEO

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Sorry but this "we dont want admin" is a pretty silly kop out.

What we had, which is the subject of most misdirection, was a CVA. This is where you agree with your creditors to settle for less than what you owe..... Like what you did with Langston to the tune of £15,000,000 a few short months back. You guys just wanted to be promoted, I showed you at the time you wouldnt be liquidated and it was echoed by one of your directors, you just would probably be relegated and have to rebuild within your means. But wheres the fun in that eh?

And to the poster above, you had every chance for your say. Do I have to bring out the statement from TG and Tan retracting the rebrand ideas and saying how you will continue with blue? It is widely known that the rebrand happened because everybody could see the premiership getting further away so then asked Tan for it and went grovelling cap in hand for a foreigner to ruin your club for some more cash.... Hence my point.

Gwyn and his valley mates did their utmost to ensure there was no opposition to this rebrand and ridiculed and threatened people who actively wanted their blue back. And now has the audacity to complain about Tan

As fans you all had a duty to stand up and be counted, a few fans did, and the rest allowed it to happen with the lure of the premier league proving too big. Im afraid those people have no right to complain what so ever, you were told what would happen.

TLG and co are the real heroes of Cardiff City, paid the ultimate price to protect the club they love and were let down in the biggest possible way by the majority.

I've some drivel on here, not as much as on the small minded, hard of thinking board though but this really does take the biscuit. No idea who you are but you are seriously deluded, it's a football team for fucks sake! I walked out of the UK as the sheeple you appear to respect fucked the country up for the foreseeable future. Football as we knew it, I'm 51 in a few months, has gone; some silly arse who likes the sound of his own voice and thinks that writing "blogs" on the internet will change what, within all likelihood will happen (he hasn't picked that up as yet despite me telling his backers for years) in the next couple of years.

The Cardiff City that I supported has gone for ever. I have a season ticket that I haven't used for a few years, given to mates mostly although most don't want to go anymore. Standing up and being counted don't count for f**k all in modern day football, you're just a seat number, a customer reading a business plan. I'm out

What twaddle.

Tan relented when you all spoke out in numbers. He only decided to change you to red because YOU ASKED FOR IT. It was the fans that did this, not Tan.

Do you want me to bring up the statement from VT and Tan stating the plans were rubbished due to fans reactions and you will continue to be blue?

You all had a vouce but only one or two decided to use it, which as tan said, are the irrelevent minority. It was everyones duty to make that voice the majority.

Sorry but this "we dont want admin" is a pretty silly kop out.

What we had, which is the subject of most misdirection, was a CVA. This is where you agree with your creditors to settle for less than what you owe..... Like what you did with Langston to the tune of £15,000,000 a few short months back. You guys just wanted to be promoted, I showed you at the time you wouldnt be liquidated and it was echoed by one of your directors, you just would probably be relegated and have to rebuild within your means. But wheres the fun in that eh?

And to the poster above, you had every chance for your say. Do I have to bring out the statement from TG and Tan retracting the rebrand ideas and saying how you will continue with blue? It is widely known that the rebrand happened because everybody could see the premiership getting further away so then asked Tan for it and went grovelling cap in hand for a foreigner to ruin your club for some more cash.... Hence my point.

Gwyn and his valley mates did their utmost to ensure there was no opposition to this rebrand and ridiculed and threatened people who actively wanted their blue back. And now has the audacity to complain about Tan

So many claims and accusations, but don't you think after all this time, there would have been proof of at least one alleged threat supposedly made by me.

[color=#0000BF]********i know for a fact you threatened one of the boys from ccmb, ill happily bring up the thread with all the witnesses if needed. There was also loads of witnesses regarding the "bury them" comment, are you denying he is your friend? Thats all i alleged.


And are you really claiming your club never went into admin, if that's the case you should ask them for those deducted points back, heaven knows you could do with them now.

**********we had a CVA under Petty not admin, and we didnt have any point deducted to claim back

And as for Langston, it was nothing like a CVA so try and keep some semblance of truth and facts.

**********does it matter what its called officially? You paid £15m less back to your creditor due to an agreement. That is essentially a CVA.

And on the night in question of the seven or so bullies as some allege, four of them are born and bred Cardiff lads, not good looking enough to live up the valleys, they failed the pretty test.

And well within my rights as any fan to complain about Tan's actions relating to present events, nothing wrong with complaining, if as a fan you feel it's to protect the club as an entity, never had a problem with people complaining, it's understandable, lot's of people were against it, but luckily the majority didn't want to cause on field disruption or cause damage to the club.
[/color]



As fans you all had a duty to stand up and be counted, a few fans did, and the rest allowed it to happen with the lure of the premier league proving too big. Im afraid those people have no right to complain what so ever, you were told what would happen.

The majority of fans did stand up to be counted, and they said that whilst it was a massive sacrifice, it was one they were prepared to take to ensure the safe guarding of our club and ensuring it's future.

***********that worked well. Seems you are in more debt than ever, identity destroyed and a name change on the cards. Congratulations.

TLG and co are the real heroes of Cardiff City, paid the ultimate price to protect the club they love and were let down in the biggest possible way by the majority.

If everyone stayed away like the real heroes, then Tan may well have walked away and taken his investment, and the heroes could have watched the club they love go out of business, is that what they describe as tough love.

**********COULD. You say. COULD. ive shown why this wouldnt be the case and this was varified by your director.

I thought Sam got £15m as opposed to the £24m we supposedly owed?
He seemed happy enough with it, probably as the debt was in part made up of penalty clauses and not real outlay by him.
Shame, I would have liked him to have got nothing

Tan relented when you all spoke out in numbers. He only decided to change you to red because YOU ASKED FOR IT. It was the fans that did this, not Tan.

This is true. They wont accept it either Roathie which is sad. There were fans crying sending Tan letters and stuff. I read some pathetic cringeworthy column in the echo as well as the time of some snivelling toe rag moaning about how all Cardiff fans should beg Tan to stay and respect him etc.

Chuckles and I spoke out at first with Tan Out and Chuckles, who will clarify this, set up a campaign via Twitter along the lines of something 'BackToBlueCCFC' I think that was or something after Tan said he'd go ahead with it. We got told to do one and so on because people wanted the money and the glory (which could have been achieved regardless in due course) and I had to set my Twitter to private twice after abuse from idiots online.

After that, seeing what the majority of fans wanted, I just stopped caring and thus my days of trolling began. My trolling stemmed from disillusionment with the club I once worshipped. Of course I wanted Cardiff to do well and win and hopefully pull through this and somehow end up blue but thats pure optimism. Its going to be a long road back now to the Cardiff City FC we knew and some fans aren't man enough to admit it.

In the end, I gave up the fight and accepted the rebrand to a degree. I didn't accept it wholly but in the form of 'if thats what you want then lets get on with it' so I am as guilty in the end as any other accepter. Chuckles took the other approach and hasn't shut up about it. I will admit it winds me up but he at least didn't break and give in, something I did in the end.

Simple fact is, Bluebirds Unite started once promotion was achieved. None of this crap was even in the works before. All a farce of its own right. Plenty of BU followers/fans/disciples even supported the rebrand in the summer for the money yet made a massive u-turn once Premier League status was achieved and the Sky/PL windfall was there. They then became diehard traditionalists overnight and started slating the very people they aligned themselves with in the summer. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE FULL OF SHITE.

Bluebirds Unite never answer questions straight up and are reminiscent of any run of the mill political party spouting the usual rhetoric and making a noise but not standing or doing anything with any pure conviction. Its pathetic. They are part of the circus act that is now Cardiff City. Tan is the clown, Bluebirds Unite are another act and the circus is home to only a few lions - Malky and a few players who will speak up.

Soon enough, those lions will be tamed and sent on their way and the circus will be in full flow. What an absolute shambles and joke we've become.

/rant

I thought Sam got £15m as opposed to the £24m we supposedly owed?
He seemed happy enough with it, probably as the debt was in part made up of penalty clauses and not real outlay by him.
Shame, I would have liked him to have got nothing

Even by your figures (however im sure Annis quoted a figure of £30 million) thats screwing your creditor over to the tune of £9m.

I dont have the figures at hand but could get them if we are to make an issue of this. Im sure we reneged on 42k to local businesses, the majority was owed to Mel Nurse who bought out the debt with the intention of writing most of it off.

Whatever way you look at it, the "we pay our debts" line is a kop out as you clearly dont and have no concerns about borrowing more than you make. You had no idea Tan was rubbing his loan shark hands in the background and the club still kept borrowing to cover its £1.2m overspend per month. cardiff is a club build and run on constant debt, most - if not all taken with the knowledge you cannot afford to pay it back.

Tan relented when you all spoke out in numbers. He only decided to change you to red because YOU ASKED FOR IT. It was the fans that did this, not Tan.

This is true. They wont accept it either Roathie which is sad. There were fans crying sending Tan letters and stuff. I read some pathetic cringeworthy column in the echo as well as the time of some snivelling toe rag moaning about how all Cardiff fans should beg Tan to stay and respect him etc.

Chuckles and I spoke out at first with Tan Out and Chuckles, who will clarify this, set up a campaign via Twitter along the lines of something 'BackToBlueCCFC' I think that was or something after Tan said he'd go ahead with it. We got told to do one and so on because people wanted the money and the glory (which could have been achieved regardless in due course) and I had to set my Twitter to private twice after abuse from idiots online.

After that, seeing what the majority of fans wanted, I just stopped caring and thus my days of trolling began. My trolling stemmed from disillusionment with the club I once worshipped. Of course I wanted Cardiff to do well and win and hopefully pull through this and somehow end up blue but thats pure optimism. Its going to be a long road back now to the Cardiff City FC we knew and some fans aren't man enough to admit it.

In the end, I gave up the fight and accepted the rebrand to a degree. I didn't accept it wholly but in the form of 'if thats what you want then lets get on with it' so I am as guilty in the end as any other accepter. Chuckles took the other approach and hasn't shut up about it. I will admit it winds me up but he at least didn't break and give in, something I did in the end.

Simple fact is, Bluebirds Unite started once promotion was achieved. None of this crap was even in the works before. All a farce of its own right. Plenty of BU followers/fans/disciples even supported the rebrand in the summer for the money yet made a massive u-turn once Premier League status was achieved and the Sky/PL windfall was there. They then became diehard traditionalists overnight and started slating the very people they aligned themselves with in the summer. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE FULL OF SHITE.

Bluebirds Unite never answer questions straight up and are reminiscent of any run of the mill political party spouting the usual rhetoric and making a noise but not standing or doing anything with any pure conviction. Its pathetic. They are part of the circus act that is now Cardiff City. Tan is the clown, Bluebirds Unite are another act and the circus is home to only a few lions - Malky and a few players who will speak up.

Soon enough, those lions will be tamed and sent on their way and the circus will be in full flow. What an absolute shambles and joke we've become.

/rant

I thought Sam got £15m as opposed to the £24m we supposedly owed?
He seemed happy enough with it, probably as the debt was in part made up of penalty clauses and not real outlay by him.
Shame, I would have liked him to have got nothing

Even by your figures (however im sure Annis quoted a figure of £30 million) thats screwing your creditor over to the tune of £9m.

I dont have the figures at hand but could get them if we are to make an issue of this. Im sure we reneged on 42k to local businesses, the majority was owed to Mel Nurse who bought out the debt with the intention of writing most of it off.

Whatever way you look at it, the "we pay our debts" line is a kop out as you clearly dont and have no concerns about borrowing more than you make. You had no idea Tan was rubbing his loan shark hands in the background and the club still kept borrowing to cover its £1.2m overspend per month. cardiff is a club build and run on constant debt, most - if not all taken with the knowledge you cannot afford to pay it back.

Oh I don't really care about you screwing your creditors or that we didn't pay Sam what he tried to claim, even though you've exaggerated the amount. Nor am i worried about the debt to VT or the irrelevant 7% some obsess about. Pretty chilled about events and just want Cardiff to win games, whatever level that may be. MM will come and go, as will VT and whole teams of players. This is Cardiff City, we never do things the easy way so why stress? I even believe we will be back in blue one day.

I'm worried about the world my daughter has to face, football doesn't even register on that scale.

I'm worried about the world my daughter has to face, football doesn't even register on that scale.

Get her educated and let her move to another country then. This one is a mess and an even bigger circus than our club.

I thought Sam got £15m as opposed to the £24m we supposedly owed?
He seemed happy enough with it, probably as the debt was in part made up of penalty clauses and not real outlay by him.
Shame, I would have liked him to have got nothing

Even by your figures (however im sure Annis quoted a figure of £30 million) thats screwing your creditor over to the tune of £9m.

I dont have the figures at hand but could get them if we are to make an issue of this. Im sure we reneged on 42k to local businesses, the majority was owed to Mel Nurse who bought out the debt with the intention of writing most of it off.

Whatever way you look at it, the "we pay our debts" line is a kop out as you clearly dont and have no concerns about borrowing more than you make. You had no idea Tan was rubbing his loan shark hands in the background and the club still kept borrowing to cover its £1.2m overspend per month. cardiff is a club build and run on constant debt, most - if not all taken with the knowledge you cannot afford to pay it back.

Oh I don't really care about you screwing your creditors or that we didn't pay Sam what he tried to claim, even though you've exaggerated the amount.


Well to be fair the post wasnt aimed at you so whether you care or not is irrelevant, i was talking to Gwyn who obviously cared enough to bring it up.

I didnt exaggerate anything. If you disagree with the figure then take it up with Annis and Carl, i took their word on it. However as ive said it a hefty amount going by anyones figures.

Nor am i worried about the debt to VT or the irrelevant 7% some obsess about. Pretty chilled about events and just want Cardiff to win games, whatever level that may be. MM will come and go, as will VT and whole teams of players. This is Cardiff City, we never do things the easy way so why stress? I even believe we will be back in blue one day.

thats fine, you dont have to be worried. I would be and others rightly are if they hold cardiff city as an important piece of their lives.

I'm worried about the world my daughter has to face, football doesn't even register on that scale

you only have the capacity to be concerned about one thing at a time? If you dont care why spend your free time posting about football when you could be doing something to sort out the world you are so concerned about.


.

I thought Sam got £15m as opposed to the £24m we supposedly owed?
He seemed happy enough with it, probably as the debt was in part made up of penalty clauses and not real outlay by him.
Shame, I would have liked him to have got nothing

Even by your figures (however im sure Annis quoted a figure of £30 million) thats screwing your creditor over to the tune of £9m.

I dont have the figures at hand but could get them if we are to make an issue of this. Im sure we reneged on 42k to local businesses, the majority was owed to Mel Nurse who bought out the debt with the intention of writing most of it off.

Whatever way you look at it, the "we pay our debts" line is a kop out as you clearly dont and have no concerns about borrowing more than you make. You had no idea Tan was rubbing his loan shark hands in the background and the club still kept borrowing to cover its £1.2m overspend per month. cardiff is a club build and run on constant debt, most - if not all taken with the knowledge you cannot afford to pay it back.

Oh I don't really care about you screwing your creditors or that we didn't pay Sam what he tried to claim, even though you've exaggerated the amount.


Well to be fair the post wasnt aimed at you so whether you care or not is irrelevant, i was talking to Gwyn who obviously cared enough to bring it up.

I didnt exaggerate anything. If you disagree with the figure then take it up with Annis and Carl, i took their word on it. However as ive said it a hefty amount going by anyones figures.

Nor am i worried about the debt to VT or the irrelevant 7% some obsess about. Pretty chilled about events and just want Cardiff to win games, whatever level that may be. MM will come and go, as will VT and whole teams of players. This is Cardiff City, we never do things the easy way so why stress? I even believe we will be back in blue one day.

thats fine, you dont have to be worried. I would be and others rightly are if they hold cardiff city as an important piece of their lives.

I'm worried about the world my daughter has to face, football doesn't even register on that scale

you only have the capacity to be concerned about one thing at a time? If you dont care why spend your free time posting about football when you could be doing something to sort out the world you are so concerned about.


.

You confuse care with worry.

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

In your eyes maybe, however im making perfect sense to the ones with the correct level of intelect. Cardiff as a club continued their insolvent business pln by loaning £1.2m per month knowing full well they couldnt pay ot back before Tan stepped in and paid on your behalf and added his customery 7%. That is the crux of the matter. Instead of paying back what you could afford you borrowed more and more each time knowing as a club you couldnt afford it - hence why Tan has you by the bollocks

Very odd that your opinion seems to be that its smart business to rip off your creditor that you couldnt afford to pay without more loans to the tune of between £9m and £17m depending on whos figures you believe, Yet poor business to pay part of a 900k debt as we couldnt afford to pay and didnt want to take out more loans like you did? If more than 50% of the creditors chose to not accept the deal then the deal wouldnt have gone ahead, just like if Sam didnt agree yours wouldnt have.

Basic.

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

Correct me if I am wrong! Isn't a cva for people who can't pay the debt they owe? In case of Sam it wasn't case of unable to pay but how much to pay him? Hence settlement agreed!

Correct me if I am wrong! Isn't a cva for people who can't pay the debt they owe? In case of Sam it wasn't case of unable to pay but how much to pay him? Hence settlement agreed!

So I take it you believe Cardiff City as a company paid him then from earnings of the company?

The loan notes were at an insolvent status. You as a club could not afford to pay back Sam, so took another loan you cant afford to pay off Tan and he paid it for you.

We reneged on general running costs of the club due to genuine financial shortfall. You took out monthly loans knowing you couldnt pay them back.

Pray tell how that is in anyway shape or form better?

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

In your eyes maybe, however im making perfect sense to the ones with the correct level of intelect. Cardiff as a club continued their insolvent business pln by loaning £1.2m per month knowing full well they couldnt pay ot back before Tan stepped in and paid on your behalf and added his customery 7%. That is the crux of the matter. Instead of paying back what you could afford you borrowed more and more each time knowing as a club you couldnt afford it - hence why Tan has you by the bollocks

Very odd that your opinion seems to be that its smart business to rip off your creditor that you couldnt afford to pay without more loans to the tune of between £9m and £17m depending on whos figures you believe, Yet poor business to pay part of a 900k debt as we couldnt afford to pay and didnt want to take out more loans like you did? If more than 50% of the creditors chose to not accept the deal then the deal wouldnt have gone ahead, just like if Sam didnt agree yours wouldnt have.

Basic.

Nice essay, Roath You'd be better off spending your time reading up on insolvency law. With those rose tinted glasses you must be Australia's answer to Donald Trump! (another imbecile )

The difference between the two scenarios is if your creditors rejected the deal... Liquidation. If Sam rejected Tan's offer..... Ummmm, oh yeah, that's right, nothing.

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

In your eyes maybe, however im making perfect sense to the ones with the correct level of intelect. Cardiff as a club continued their insolvent business pln by loaning £1.2m per month knowing full well they couldnt pay ot back before Tan stepped in and paid on your behalf and added his customery 7%. That is the crux of the matter. Instead of paying back what you could afford you borrowed more and more each time knowing as a club you couldnt afford it - hence why Tan has you by the bollocks

Very odd that your opinion seems to be that its smart business to rip off your creditor that you couldnt afford to pay without more loans to the tune of between £9m and £17m depending on whos figures you believe, Yet poor business to pay part of a 900k debt as we couldnt afford to pay and didnt want to take out more loans like you did? If more than 50% of the creditors chose to not accept the deal then the deal wouldnt have gone ahead, just like if Sam didnt agree yours wouldnt have.

Basic.

Nice essay, Roath You'd be better off spending your time reading up on insolvency law. With those rose tinted glasses you must be Australia's answer to Donald Trump! (another imbecile )

The difference between the two scenarios is if your creditors rejected the deal... Liquidation. If Sam rejected Tan's offer..... Ummmm, oh yeah, that's right, nothing....... Until 2016 when you would have been liquidated due to the time lapse on the loan notes ... Along with all the other debts you had to ask Tan to pay as you couldnt afford to, like the numerous winding up orders. :thumbup:

Fixed

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

In your eyes maybe, however im making perfect sense to the ones with the correct level of intelect. Cardiff as a club continued their insolvent business pln by loaning £1.2m per month knowing full well they couldnt pay ot back before Tan stepped in and paid on your behalf and added his customery 7%. That is the crux of the matter. Instead of paying back what you could afford you borrowed more and more each time knowing as a club you couldnt afford it - hence why Tan has you by the bollocks

Very odd that your opinion seems to be that its smart business to rip off your creditor that you couldnt afford to pay without more loans to the tune of between £9m and £17m depending on whos figures you believe, Yet poor business to pay part of a 900k debt as we couldnt afford to pay and didnt want to take out more loans like you did? If more than 50% of the creditors chose to not accept the deal then the deal wouldnt have gone ahead, just like if Sam didnt agree yours wouldnt have.

Basic.

Nice essay, Roath You'd be better off spending your time reading up on insolvency law. With those rose tinted glasses you must be Australia's answer to Donald Trump! (another imbecile )

The difference between the two scenarios is if your creditors rejected the deal... Liquidation. If Sam rejected Tan's offer..... Ummmm, oh yeah, that's right, nothing.

Game Set and Match

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

In your eyes maybe, however im making perfect sense to the ones with the correct level of intelect. Cardiff as a club continued their insolvent business pln by loaning £1.2m per month knowing full well they couldnt pay ot back before Tan stepped in and paid on your behalf and added his customery 7%. That is the crux of the matter. Instead of paying back what you could afford you borrowed more and more each time knowing as a club you couldnt afford it - hence why Tan has you by the bollocks

Very odd that your opinion seems to be that its smart business to rip off your creditor that you couldnt afford to pay without more loans to the tune of between £9m and £17m depending on whos figures you believe, Yet poor business to pay part of a 900k debt as we couldnt afford to pay and didnt want to take out more loans like you did? If more than 50% of the creditors chose to not accept the deal then the deal wouldnt have gone ahead, just like if Sam didnt agree yours wouldnt have.

Basic.

Nice essay, Roath You'd be better off spending your time reading up on insolvency law. With those rose tinted glasses you must be Australia's answer to Donald Trump! (another imbecile )

The difference between the two scenarios is if your creditors rejected the deal... Liquidation. If Sam rejected Tan's offer..... Ummmm, oh yeah, that's right, nothing.

Game Set and Match

Yeah because Sam would have just accepted getting nothing

The loan notes expired in 2016 which upon non payment would have resulted in liquidation.

There were also numerous winding up orders prior to Tan stepping in which if he didnt you would also have been in admin/liquidation.

Both examples are loan notes with insolvent status due to the company, cardiff city, not having the funds to repay without taking more loans.

If you think yanks post is game set match (although judging from your name i guess you are the same person) then you are more deluded than a Vincent Tan is our saviour slogan

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

In your eyes maybe, however im making perfect sense to the ones with the correct level of intelect. Cardiff as a club continued their insolvent business pln by loaning £1.2m per month knowing full well they couldnt pay ot back before Tan stepped in and paid on your behalf and added his customery 7%. That is the crux of the matter. Instead of paying back what you could afford you borrowed more and more each time knowing as a club you couldnt afford it - hence why Tan has you by the bollocks

Very odd that your opinion seems to be that its smart business to rip off your creditor that you couldnt afford to pay without more loans to the tune of between £9m and £17m depending on whos figures you believe, Yet poor business to pay part of a 900k debt as we couldnt afford to pay and didnt want to take out more loans like you did? If more than 50% of the creditors chose to not accept the deal then the deal wouldnt have gone ahead, just like if Sam didnt agree yours wouldnt have.

Basic.

Nice essay, Roath You'd be better off spending your time reading up on insolvency law. With those rose tinted glasses you must be Australia's answer to Donald Trump! (another imbecile )

The difference between the two scenarios is if your creditors rejected the deal... Liquidation. If Sam rejected Tan's offer..... Ummmm, oh yeah, that's right, nothing....... Until 2016 when you would have been liquidated due to the time lapse on the loan notes ... Along with all the other debts you had to ask Tan to pay as you couldnt afford to, like the numerous winding up orders. :thumbup:

Fixed

Oh yes, you've got me. You often see holders of unsecured paper taking debtors to liquidation. You know, because they get so much back.

Oh no... Wait... That doesn't happen at all.

Do the research before you post. Or have a nap. Something.

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

In your eyes maybe, however im making perfect sense to the ones with the correct level of intelect. Cardiff as a club continued their insolvent business pln by loaning £1.2m per month knowing full well they couldnt pay ot back before Tan stepped in and paid on your behalf and added his customery 7%. That is the crux of the matter. Instead of paying back what you could afford you borrowed more and more each time knowing as a club you couldnt afford it - hence why Tan has you by the bollocks

Very odd that your opinion seems to be that its smart business to rip off your creditor that you couldnt afford to pay without more loans to the tune of between £9m and £17m depending on whos figures you believe, Yet poor business to pay part of a 900k debt as we couldnt afford to pay and didnt want to take out more loans like you did? If more than 50% of the creditors chose to not accept the deal then the deal wouldnt have gone ahead, just like if Sam didnt agree yours wouldnt have.

Basic.

Nice essay, Roath You'd be better off spending your time reading up on insolvency law. With those rose tinted glasses you must be Australia's answer to Donald Trump! (another imbecile )

The difference between the two scenarios is if your creditors rejected the deal... Liquidation. If Sam rejected Tan's offer..... Ummmm, oh yeah, that's right, nothing....... Until 2016 when you would have been liquidated due to the time lapse on the loan notes ... Along with all the other debts you had to ask Tan to pay as you couldnt afford to, like the numerous winding up orders. :thumbup:

Fixed

Oh yes, you've got me. You often see holders of unsecured paper taking debtors to liquidation. You know, because they get so much back.

Oh no... Wait... That doesn't happen at all.

Do the research before you post. Or have a nap. Something.

So now you are saying its good business to pay back something you didnt have to?

Sam was entitled to the money as the forensic accountants paid with their job will testify.

Just as the winding up orders which you couldn't afford to pay were about to place you into admin/liquidation. Remember them

Yank, this is poor even by your standards

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

In your eyes maybe, however im making perfect sense to the ones with the correct level of intelect. Cardiff as a club continued their insolvent business pln by loaning £1.2m per month knowing full well they couldnt pay ot back before Tan stepped in and paid on your behalf and added his customery 7%. That is the crux of the matter. Instead of paying back what you could afford you borrowed more and more each time knowing as a club you couldnt afford it - hence why Tan has you by the bollocks

Very odd that your opinion seems to be that its smart business to rip off your creditor that you couldnt afford to pay without more loans to the tune of between £9m and £17m depending on whos figures you believe, Yet poor business to pay part of a 900k debt as we couldnt afford to pay and didnt want to take out more loans like you did? If more than 50% of the creditors chose to not accept the deal then the deal wouldnt have gone ahead, just like if Sam didnt agree yours wouldnt have.

Basic.

Nice essay, Roath You'd be better off spending your time reading up on insolvency law. With those rose tinted glasses you must be Australia's answer to Donald Trump! (another imbecile )

The difference between the two scenarios is if your creditors rejected the deal... Liquidation. If Sam rejected Tan's offer..... Ummmm, oh yeah, that's right, nothing.

Game Set and Match

Yeah because Sam would have just accepted getting nothing

The loan notes expired in 2016 which upon non payment would have resulted in liquidation.

There were also numerous winding up orders prior to Tan stepping in which if he didnt you would also have been in admin/liquidation.

Both examples are loan notes with insolvent status due to the company, cardiff city, not having the funds to repay without taking more loans.

If you think yanks post is game set match (although judging from your name i guess you are the same person) then you are more deluded than a Vincent Tan is our saviour slogan

Only ever had one name on here princess.
Never felt the compulsion to reinvent myself like you.
Toodles xx

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

In your eyes maybe, however im making perfect sense to the ones with the correct level of intelect. Cardiff as a club continued their insolvent business pln by loaning £1.2m per month knowing full well they couldnt pay ot back before Tan stepped in and paid on your behalf and added his customery 7%. That is the crux of the matter. Instead of paying back what you could afford you borrowed more and more each time knowing as a club you couldnt afford it - hence why Tan has you by the bollocks

Very odd that your opinion seems to be that its smart business to rip off your creditor that you couldnt afford to pay without more loans to the tune of between £9m and £17m depending on whos figures you believe, Yet poor business to pay part of a 900k debt as we couldnt afford to pay and didnt want to take out more loans like you did? If more than 50% of the creditors chose to not accept the deal then the deal wouldnt have gone ahead, just like if Sam didnt agree yours wouldnt have.

Basic.

Nice essay, Roath You'd be better off spending your time reading up on insolvency law. With those rose tinted glasses you must be Australia's answer to Donald Trump! (another imbecile )

The difference between the two scenarios is if your creditors rejected the deal... Liquidation. If Sam rejected Tan's offer..... Ummmm, oh yeah, that's right, nothing.

Game Set and Match

Yeah because Sam would have just accepted getting nothing

The loan notes expired in 2016 which upon non payment would have resulted in liquidation.

There were also numerous winding up orders prior to Tan stepping in which if he didnt you would also have been in admin/liquidation.

Both examples are loan notes with insolvent status due to the company, cardiff city, not having the funds to repay without taking more loans.

If you think yanks post is game set match (although judging from your name i guess you are the same person) then you are more deluded than a Vincent Tan is our saviour slogan

Only ever had one name on here princess.
Never felt the compulsion to reinvent myself like you.
Toodles xx

Yeah right

Well i suggest you do after your last pearler

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

In your eyes maybe, however im making perfect sense to the ones with the correct level of intelect. Cardiff as a club continued their insolvent business pln by loaning £1.2m per month knowing full well they couldnt pay ot back before Tan stepped in and paid on your behalf and added his customery 7%. That is the crux of the matter. Instead of paying back what you could afford you borrowed more and more each time knowing as a club you couldnt afford it - hence why Tan has you by the bollocks

Very odd that your opinion seems to be that its smart business to rip off your creditor that you couldnt afford to pay without more loans to the tune of between £9m and £17m depending on whos figures you believe, Yet poor business to pay part of a 900k debt as we couldnt afford to pay and didnt want to take out more loans like you did? If more than 50% of the creditors chose to not accept the deal then the deal wouldnt have gone ahead, just like if Sam didnt agree yours wouldnt have.

Basic.

Nice essay, Roath You'd be better off spending your time reading up on insolvency law. With those rose tinted glasses you must be Australia's answer to Donald Trump! (another imbecile )

The difference between the two scenarios is if your creditors rejected the deal... Liquidation. If Sam rejected Tan's offer..... Ummmm, oh yeah, that's right, nothing.

Game Set and Match

Yeah because Sam would have just accepted getting nothing

The loan notes expired in 2016 which upon non payment would have resulted in liquidation.

There were also numerous winding up orders prior to Tan stepping in which if he didnt you would also have been in admin/liquidation.

Both examples are loan notes with insolvent status due to the company, cardiff city, not having the funds to repay without taking more loans.

If you think yanks post is game set match (although judging from your name i guess you are the same person) then you are more deluded than a Vincent Tan is our saviour slogan

Only ever had one name on here princess.
Never felt the compulsion to reinvent myself like you.
Toodles xx

Yeah right

Well i suggest you do after your last pearler

You seem to think its normal practice there Sybil.
Out of slight curiosity and a little boredom of a Monday evening, how many user names do you think that you have held on here?

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

In your eyes maybe, however im making perfect sense to the ones with the correct level of intelect. Cardiff as a club continued their insolvent business pln by loaning £1.2m per month knowing full well they couldnt pay ot back before Tan stepped in and paid on your behalf and added his customery 7%. That is the crux of the matter. Instead of paying back what you could afford you borrowed more and more each time knowing as a club you couldnt afford it - hence why Tan has you by the bollocks

Very odd that your opinion seems to be that its smart business to rip off your creditor that you couldnt afford to pay without more loans to the tune of between £9m and £17m depending on whos figures you believe, Yet poor business to pay part of a 900k debt as we couldnt afford to pay and didnt want to take out more loans like you did? If more than 50% of the creditors chose to not accept the deal then the deal wouldnt have gone ahead, just like if Sam didnt agree yours wouldnt have.

Basic.

Nice essay, Roath You'd be better off spending your time reading up on insolvency law. With those rose tinted glasses you must be Australia's answer to Donald Trump! (another imbecile )

The difference between the two scenarios is if your creditors rejected the deal... Liquidation. If Sam rejected Tan's offer..... Ummmm, oh yeah, that's right, nothing....... Until 2016 when you would have been liquidated due to the time lapse on the loan notes ... Along with all the other debts you had to ask Tan to pay as you couldnt afford to, like the numerous winding up orders. :thumbup:

Fixed

Oh yes, you've got me. You often see holders of unsecured paper taking debtors to liquidation. You know, because they get so much back.

Oh no... Wait... That doesn't happen at all.

Do the research before you post. Or have a nap. Something.

So now you are saying its good business to pay back something you didnt have to?

Sam was entitled to the money as the forensic accountants paid with their job will testify.

Just as the winding up orders which you couldn't afford to pay were about to place you into admin/liquidation. Remember them

Yank, this is poor even by your standards

Good business to pay back something you didn't have to? Maybe you said that? It may have been on planet roath where creditors liquidate companies knowing full well they will get nothing.

You are the one letting yourself down today. Showing a terrible lack of intellect.... Paranoia... Accusing random (very sensible) posters of being each other. What next? Yank is Daya! Yank is Barnett!

A little out of character TBH, but that does not make it any less amusing.

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

In your eyes maybe, however im making perfect sense to the ones with the correct level of intelect. Cardiff as a club continued their insolvent business pln by loaning £1.2m per month knowing full well they couldnt pay ot back before Tan stepped in and paid on your behalf and added his customery 7%. That is the crux of the matter. Instead of paying back what you could afford you borrowed more and more each time knowing as a club you couldnt afford it - hence why Tan has you by the bollocks

Very odd that your opinion seems to be that its smart business to rip off your creditor that you couldnt afford to pay without more loans to the tune of between £9m and £17m depending on whos figures you believe, Yet poor business to pay part of a 900k debt as we couldnt afford to pay and didnt want to take out more loans like you did? If more than 50% of the creditors chose to not accept the deal then the deal wouldnt have gone ahead, just like if Sam didnt agree yours wouldnt have.

Basic.

Nice essay, Roath You'd be better off spending your time reading up on insolvency law. With those rose tinted glasses you must be Australia's answer to Donald Trump! (another imbecile )

The difference between the two scenarios is if your creditors rejected the deal... Liquidation. If Sam rejected Tan's offer..... Ummmm, oh yeah, that's right, nothing....... Until 2016 when you would have been liquidated due to the time lapse on the loan notes ... Along with all the other debts you had to ask Tan to pay as you couldnt afford to, like the numerous winding up orders. :thumbup:

Fixed

Oh yes, you've got me. You often see holders of unsecured paper taking debtors to liquidation. You know, because they get so much back.

Oh no... Wait... That doesn't happen at all.

Do the research before you post. Or have a nap. Something.

So now you are saying its good business to pay back something you didnt have to?

Sam was entitled to the money as the forensic accountants paid with their job will testify.

Just as the winding up orders which you couldn't afford to pay were about to place you into admin/liquidation. Remember them

Yank, this is poor even by your standards

Good business to pay back something you didn't have to? Maybe you said that? It may have been on planet roath where creditors liquidate companies knowing full well they will get nothing.

does this even make sense? Ive read it a few times and not getting head nor tail of it. You owed money and took out more loans you as a company could not afford to pay. Tell me, why were you facing numerous winding up orders? And also tell me how you as a company could afford to pay them back without someone from the outside coming to the "rescue".... With interest,

You are the one letting yourself down today. Showing a terrible lack of intellect.... Paranoia... Accusing random (very sensible) posters of being each other. What next? Yank is Daya! Yank is Barnett!

i was just staggered two people with USA in their names showing the same distinct lack of understanding of what is being discussed. Maybe its a coincidence

A little out of character TBH, but that does not make it any less amusing.

was going to say the same about you. When you start swearing and abusing then its clear the nerve is exposed and then proceeded to be hit with a malaysia size sledge hammer.

You could not afford to pay your debts so took a loan out you couldnt afford to pay back to cover your ass and continued to overspend. We stopped when we knew we couldnt pay them back and paid back what we could. Sam is now out of pocket £9-17m while our creditors are out of pocket by 42k.

Your debt was created by dishonesty, ours was created just by simply running a football club. The fact is your club would have been insolvent if Tan didnt agree to lend you more money you couldnt afford to pay back. And as a rsult you accepted and he has you by the bollocks

There in lies the difference and you know it

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

In your eyes maybe, however im making perfect sense to the ones with the correct level of intelect. Cardiff as a club continued their insolvent business pln by loaning £1.2m per month knowing full well they couldnt pay ot back before Tan stepped in and paid on your behalf and added his customery 7%. That is the crux of the matter. Instead of paying back what you could afford you borrowed more and more each time knowing as a club you couldnt afford it - hence why Tan has you by the bollocks

Very odd that your opinion seems to be that its smart business to rip off your creditor that you couldnt afford to pay without more loans to the tune of between £9m and £17m depending on whos figures you believe, Yet poor business to pay part of a 900k debt as we couldnt afford to pay and didnt want to take out more loans like you did? If more than 50% of the creditors chose to not accept the deal then the deal wouldnt have gone ahead, just like if Sam didnt agree yours wouldnt have.

Basic.

Nice essay, Roath You'd be better off spending your time reading up on insolvency law. With those rose tinted glasses you must be Australia's answer to Donald Trump! (another imbecile )

The difference between the two scenarios is if your creditors rejected the deal... Liquidation. If Sam rejected Tan's offer..... Ummmm, oh yeah, that's right, nothing....... Until 2016 when you would have been liquidated due to the time lapse on the loan notes ... Along with all the other debts you had to ask Tan to pay as you couldnt afford to, like the numerous winding up orders. :thumbup:

Fixed

Oh yes, you've got me. You often see holders of unsecured paper taking debtors to liquidation. You know, because they get so much back.

Oh no... Wait... That doesn't happen at all.

Do the research before you post. Or have a nap. Something.

So now you are saying its good business to pay back something you didnt have to?

Sam was entitled to the money as the forensic accountants paid with their job will testify.

Just as the winding up orders which you couldn't afford to pay were about to place you into admin/liquidation. Remember them

Yank, this is poor even by your standards

Good business to pay back something you didn't have to? Maybe you said that? It may have been on planet roath where creditors liquidate companies knowing full well they will get nothing.

does this even make sense? Ive read it a few times and not getting head nor tail of it. You owed money and took out more loans you as a company could not afford to pay. Tell me, why were you facing numerous winding up orders? And also tell me how you as a company could afford to pay them back without someone from the outside coming to the "rescue".... With interest,

You are the one letting yourself down today. Showing a terrible lack of intellect.... Paranoia... Accusing random (very sensible) posters of being each other. What next? Yank is Daya! Yank is Barnett!

i was just staggered two people with USA in their names showing the same distinct lack of understanding of what is being discussed. Maybe its a coincidence

A little out of character TBH, but that does not make it any less amusing.

was going to say the same about you. When you start swearing and abusing then its clear the nerve is exposed and then proceeded to be hit with a malaysia size sledge hammer.

You could not afford to pay your debts so took a loan out you couldnt afford to pay back to cover your ass and continued to overspend. We stopped when we knew we couldnt pay them back and paid back what we could. Sam is now out of pocket £9-17m while our creditors are out of pocket by 42k.

Your debt was created by dishonesty, ours was created just by simply running a football club. The fact is your club would have been insolvent if Tan didnt agree to lend you more money you couldnt afford to pay back. And as a rsult you accepted and he has you by the bollocks

There in lies the difference and you know it

If this is the case, why can't your club only afford to rent a council house?

If this is the case, why can't your club only afford to rent a council house?

If what is the case? we havent even discussed our spending power have we? That doesnt even make sense anyway. I think you mean why can we not why cant we? Ill answer the latter.

When the stadium was being built by the council we were in league 2 we did not have a spare £15m knocking about. Funny that.

We now could afford to buy iy if we want to but it is of no benefit to us. We have posted £32 million PROFIT in the last two years and are looking at a record breaking profit posting this year too. The only reason i can see that a club would want to own the stadium in our position is if they wanted to attract a Vincent Tan character.

Think we will give it a miss and keep just giving them a chunk of the gates like AC Milan and Inter

Ha ha ha Roath... what an imbecile, banging on about a cva like it's some kind of common business practice.

Only if your business is insolvent, Roath.

Why a CVA comes about isnt what the point is. The fact is you paid Langston £15m less than what they were owed to settle, which is exactly what a CVA is.

Smart business, as opposed to having no choice due to being insolvent, you mean?

What would have happened if more than 50 percent of your creditors said no to the proposal? Yes, that's right, you'd have been liquidated.

Exactly the same thing. You are becoming something of a clown.

In your eyes maybe, however im making perfect sense to the ones with the correct level of intelect. Cardiff as a club continued their insolvent business pln by loaning £1.2m per month knowing full well they couldnt pay ot back before Tan stepped in and paid on your behalf and added his customery 7%. That is the crux of the matter. Instead of paying back what you could afford you borrowed more and more each time knowing as a club you couldnt afford it - hence why Tan has you by the bollocks

Very odd that your opinion seems to be that its smart business to rip off your creditor that you couldnt afford to pay without more loans to the tune of between £9m and £17m depending on whos figures you believe, Yet poor business to pay part of a 900k debt as we couldnt afford to pay and didnt want to take out more loans like you did? If more than 50% of the creditors chose to not accept the deal then the deal wouldnt have gone ahead, just like if Sam didnt agree yours wouldnt have.

Basic.

Nice essay, Roath You'd be better off spending your time reading up on insolvency law. With those rose tinted glasses you must be Australia's answer to Donald Trump! (another imbecile )

The difference between the two scenarios is if your creditors rejected the deal... Liquidation. If Sam rejected Tan's offer..... Ummmm, oh yeah, that's right, nothing....... Until 2016 when you would have been liquidated due to the time lapse on the loan notes ... Along with all the other debts you had to ask Tan to pay as you couldnt afford to, like the numerous winding up orders. :thumbup:

Fixed

Oh yes, you've got me. You often see holders of unsecured paper taking debtors to liquidation. You know, because they get so much back.

Oh no... Wait... That doesn't happen at all.

Do the research before you post. Or have a nap. Something.

So now you are saying its good business to pay back something you didnt have to?

Sam was entitled to the money as the forensic accountants paid with their job will testify.

Just as the winding up orders which you couldn't afford to pay were about to place you into admin/liquidation. Remember them

Yank, this is poor even by your standards

Good business to pay back something you didn't have to? Maybe you said that? It may have been on planet roath where creditors liquidate companies knowing full well they will get nothing.

does this even make sense? Ive read it a few times and not getting head nor tail of it. You owed money and took out more loans you as a company could not afford to pay. Tell me, why were you facing numerous winding up orders? And also tell me how you as a company could afford to pay them back without someone from the outside coming to the "rescue".... With interest,

You are the one letting yourself down today. Showing a terrible lack of intellect.... Paranoia... Accusing random (very sensible) posters of being each other. What next? Yank is Daya! Yank is Barnett!

i was just staggered two people with USA in their names showing the same distinct lack of understanding of what is being discussed. Maybe its a coincidence

A little out of character TBH, but that does not make it any less amusing.

was going to say the same about you. When you start swearing and abusing then its clear the nerve is exposed and then proceeded to be hit with a malaysia size sledge hammer.

You could not afford to pay your debts so took a loan out you couldnt afford to pay back to cover your ass and continued to overspend. We stopped when we knew we couldnt pay them back and paid back what we could. Sam is now out of pocket £9-17m while our creditors are out of pocket by 42k.

Your debt was created by dishonesty, ours was created just by simply running a football club. The fact is your club would have been insolvent if Tan didnt agree to lend you more money you couldnt afford to pay back. And as a rsult you accepted and he has you by the bollocks

There in lies the difference and you know it

I am further amused by the amount of time you are putting into this. Even throwing in some colour

How much more of your time do you think I can waste?

Ah the old "just fishing" chestnut eh?

Im willing to chat to you for as long as you would like, these threads stay open forever, we can always pop back and forth. Some stimulating debate would be good rather than what you are serving up currently however.