VINCENT TAN = LIAR.................?

I dont 100% get it myself to be honest but basically either way as he owes nearly 100% he owes the money to himself so its not in his interest to let us go bust,

to use a more simpler analogy hes not borrowing money he cant afford to pay back, hes lending one of his business money from his own personal fortune

Hard work aint it mate, for our best interests we need him convert don't we ?

I'll never forgive him regardless, I know we're 18+ months on but I still can't quite believe what he's decided to do.

I dont 100% get it myself to be honest but basically either way as he owes nearly 100% he owes the money to himself so its not in his interest to let us go bust,

to use a more simpler analogy hes not borrowing money he cant afford to pay back, hes lending one of his business money from his own personal fortune

Hard work aint it mate, for our best interests we need him convert don't we ?

I'll never forgive him regardless, I know we're 18+ months on but I still can't quite believe what he's decided to do.

It is mate, i tried to get into it with someone yesterday and realised i didnt have a f*cking scooby either

What I do know its not like Ridsdale where he was borrowing money against future ticket sakes and had f**k all to put in or lose if it went tits up.

I thank Tan for the bank rolling but ive had enough of him now, the latest interview and 30% increase in 2 years on the ST sales I wint be renewing.

Polo, of course it is in his interests.

If he continues to own you then he continues to fund your losses.

As owner and creditor he has you by the balls and can pocket or sell and pocket everything in the companies name to service the debt. Players, land, ticket money, parachute payments, sponsorship etc etc etc

You will essentially be left debt free, but you will have the resources of a conference side with a big stadium.

Polo, of course it is in his interests.

If he continues to own you then he continues to fund your losses.

As owner and creditor he has you by the balls and can pocket or sell and pocket everything in the companies name to service the debt. Players, land, ticket money, parachute payments, sponsorship etc etc etc

You will essentially be left debt free, but you will have the resources of a conference side with a big stadium.

It isnot in his interests to let us go bust he is in negative equity

It isnot in his interests to let us go bust he is in negative equity

Who has suggested that he will then? I dont think ive ever heard anyone suggest he may do that, Of course he wont.

All his loans to you are covered by assets, it is not in his interests to loan money that cant be covered by the sale of assets.

I just re-read your posts and read it incorrectly. I thought you said it is not in his interests to let himself get into negative equity - not that he IS n negative equity.

He is not in negative equity. Nowhere near.

He will be if he continues to fund ou for another year in the Championship though, hence why im of the firm believe that relegation will be him gone.

I just re-read your posts and read it incorrectly. I thought you said it is not in his interests to let himself get into negative equity - not that he IS n negative equity.

He is not in negative equity. Nowhere near.

He will be if he continues to fund ou for another year in the Championship though, hence why im of the firm believe that relegation will be him gone.

He is in negative equity NQAT.

Land around ground sold by ridsdale, the spinsorship is mainly himself, and dont get me started on the value of the squad.

I just re-read your posts and read it incorrectly. I thought you said it is not in his interests to let himself get into negative equity - not that he IS n negative equity.

He is not in negative equity. Nowhere near.

He will be if he continues to fund ou for another year in the Championship though, hence why im of the firm believe that relegation will be him gone.

He is in negative equity NQAT.

Land around ground sold by ridsdale, the spinsorship is mainly himself, and dont get me started on the value of the squad.

agree - if we go down and he decided to cash in and asset strip the squad he won't get a lot!!! Caulker, Medel, Mutch, Marshall, Daelhi (potential!) and Noone are the only ones who would fetch more than £1m lol!!!!

I just re-read your posts and read it incorrectly. I thought you said it is not in his interests to let himself get into negative equity - not that he IS n negative equity.

He is not in negative equity. Nowhere near.

He will be if he continues to fund ou for another year in the Championship though, hence why im of the firm believe that relegation will be him gone.

He is in negative equity NQAT.

Land around ground sold by ridsdale, the spinsorship is mainly himself, and dont get me started on the value of the squad.

He is NOT in negative equity.

£20m parachute money
£40m playing staff
£15m shares
£8m ticket money
£6m? Training ground complex (dont know exact amount)

Thats pretty much £90m just off the top of my head.

Medel - £7m
Caulker - £7m
Mutch - £5m
Noone - £3m
Marshall - £2m
Kim - £2m
Whittingham - £2m
Campbell - £2m
Daeli - £1m
Turner - £1m
Gunnarson - £1m
John - £1m


If you put the above on the transfer list at this price the there is no question they would sell. Again the players are just off the top of my head, the prices deliberately understated and that still makes £34 million.

I just re-read your posts and read it incorrectly. I thought you said it is not in his interests to let himself get into negative equity - not that he IS n negative equity.

He is not in negative equity. Nowhere near.

He will be if he continues to fund ou for another year in the Championship though, hence why im of the firm believe that relegation will be him gone.

He is in negative equity NQAT.

Land around ground sold by ridsdale, the spinsorship is mainly himself, and dont get me started on the value of the squad.

He is NOT in negative equity.

£20m parachute money
£40m playing staff
£15m shares
£8m ticket money
£6m? Training ground complex (dont know exact amount)

Thats pretty much £90m just off the top of my head.

So negative equity then.

Medel - £7m
Caulker - £7m
Mutch - £5m
Noone - £3m
Marshall - £2m
Kim - £2m
Whittingham - £2m
Campbell - £2m
Daeli - £1m
Turner - £1m
Gunnarson - £1m
John - £1m


If you put the above on the transfer list at this price the there is no question they would sell. Again the players are just off the top of my head, the prices deliberately understated and that still makes £34 million.

Think there's a few prices there that are over estimates but that's just my opinion.

So negative equity then.

You are basing this on a debt amount of what?

Medel - £7m
Caulker - £7m
Mutch - £5m
Noone - £3m
Marshall - £2m
Kim - £2m
Whittingham - £2m
Campbell - £2m
Daeli - £1m
Turner - £1m
Gunnarson - £1m
John - £1m


If you put the above on the transfer list at this price the there is no question they would sell. Again the players are just off the top of my head, the prices deliberately understated and that still makes £34 million.

Think there's a few prices there that are over estimates but that's just my opinion.

Which ones? I deliberately underestimated them.

Medel - £7m
Caulker - £7m
Mutch - £5m
Noone - £3m
Marshall - £2m
Kim - £2m
Whittingham - £2m
Campbell - £2m
Daeli - £1m
Turner - £1m
Gunnarson - £1m
John - £1m


If you put the above on the transfer list at this price the there is no question they would sell. Again the players are just off the top of my head, the prices deliberately understated and that still makes £34 million.

Think there's a few prices there that are over estimates but that's just my opinion.

Which ones? I deliberately underestimated them.

Mutch (injury prone), Kim (tidy player but not top level), Whitts (see Kim), Campbell (only bought for around £600k I think and his goal record for us is hardly worth 3x what we paid for him), Gunnar & Turner - maybe £1m at an absolute push.

With the others in fairness you are probably not too far off the mark (meaning I'd be disappointed if those players were to be sold for less than the figure you quoted).

So negative equity then.

You are basing this on a debt amount of what?

You tell me you were the one disagreeing with Wez when he claimed it was 80m saying more likely 120m.

Check mate and goodnight.

Too easy

Ciao Ciao

You tell me you were the one disagreeing with Wez when he claimed it was 80m saying more likely 120m.

Check mate and goodnight.

Too easy

Ciao Ciao

so you don't know then, great time to cut and run

Bye Polo, come back when you can back up your futile points

Medel - £7m
Caulker - £7m
Mutch - £5m
Noone - £3m
Marshall - £2m
Kim - £2m
Whittingham - £2m
Campbell - £2m
Daeli - £1m
Turner - £1m
Gunnarson - £1m
John - £1m


If you put the above on the transfer list at this price the there is no question they would sell. Again the players are just off the top of my head, the prices deliberately understated and that still makes £34 million.

Think there's a few prices there that are over estimates but that's just my opinion.

Which ones? I deliberately underestimated them.

Mutch (injury prone), Kim (tidy player but not top level), Whitts (see Kim), Campbell (only bought for around £600k I think and his goal record for us is hardly worth 3x what we paid for him), Gunnar & Turner - maybe £1m at an absolute push.

With the others in fairness you are probably not too far off the mark (meaning I'd be disappointed if those players were to be sold for less than the figure you quoted).

You are looking at it wrong. It isnt a list of players that will sell to prem a clubs, they dont have to be top level.

Kim "not top level" - he wasn't top level when you bought him and you bought him for £2.2m didnt you? He now has Prem experience and is going to a World Cup. A Championship club would snap him up for £2m.

Campbell was bought for 600k because he wasnt playing. Since then he is getting 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 in the Prem isnt he? £2m is nothing for an English 26 year old striker.

Whittingham rips up the Championship. If put on sale for £2m the likes of Leeds and Forest will be rubbing theor hands together.

The rest you agree with. I priced them to sell. It isnt a list of "premier league quality players". There will always be a buyer for players as teams are always in the market for players.

You tell me you were the one disagreeing with Wez when he claimed it was 80m saying more likely 120m.

Check mate and goodnight.

Too easy

Ciao Ciao

so you don't know then, great time to cut and run

Bye Polo, come back when you can back up your futile points

80m if you listen to Tan, 120m acording to you and 150m acvording to Annis.

Whichever one you go for you lose an argument or are proved to be a liar.

CHECK MATE

Medel - £7m
Caulker - £7m
Mutch - £5m
Noone - £3m
Marshall - £2m
Kim - £2m
Whittingham - £2m
Campbell - £2m
Daeli - £1m
Turner - £1m
Gunnarson - £1m
John - £1m


If you put the above on the transfer list at this price the there is no question they would sell. Again the players are just off the top of my head, the prices deliberately understated and that still makes £34 million.

Think there's a few prices there that are over estimates but that's just my opinion.

Which ones? I deliberately underestimated them.

Mutch (injury prone), Kim (tidy player but not top level), Whitts (see Kim), Campbell (only bought for around £600k I think and his goal record for us is hardly worth 3x what we paid for him), Gunnar & Turner - maybe £1m at an absolute push.

With the others in fairness you are probably not too far off the mark (meaning I'd be disappointed if those players were to be sold for less than the figure you quoted).

You are looking at it wrong. It isnt a list of players that will sell to prem a clubs, they dont have to be top level.

Kim "not top level" - he wasn't top level when you bought him and you bought him for £2.2m didnt you? He now has Prem experience and is going to a World Cup. A Championship club would snap him up for £2m.

Campbell was bought for 600k because he wasnt playing. Since then he is getting 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 in the Prem isnt he? £2m is nothing for an English 26 year old striker.

Whittingham rips up the Championship. If put on sale for £2m the likes of Leeds and Forest will be rubbing theor hands together.

The rest you agree with. I priced them to sell. It isnt a list of "premier league quality players". There will always be a buyer for players as teams are always in the market for players.

I was thinking that as I was writing, I wasn't just basing my thoughts on Premiership clubs only. I do take your points, I'd just be surprised that's all if the players in question went for those prices.

Especially if Tan does start to asset strip/fire sale, clubs aren't stupid, they will go as low as possible if they know Tan is trying to make as much as he can before he fucks off.

Either way they could go for 10p each or £10m each, we won't see any of the money from the sales. We'll just end up having a squad of about 8 players like Malky did when he first came to the club and hoping to pick up freebies on peanuts!

80m if you listen to Tan, 120m acording to you and 150m acvording to Annis.

Whichever one you go for you lose an argument or are proved to be a liar.

CHECK MATE

Is this new "liar" jibe you attribute to every debate you are floundering in something you thought about during your "im never posting again" absence.... Ignoring the fact it turned out a lie of course

I asked YOU what YOU think the debt level stands at.

My debate with wez was based on what the debt stands at TO THE CLUB not to Tan. If £30m of transfers are owed next December then if he sells up before then HE is not liable for it. think about it brains

80m if you listen to Tan, 120m acording to you and 150m acvording to Annis.

Whichever one you go for you lose an argument or are proved to be a liar.

CHECK MATE

Is this new "liar" jibe you attribute to every debate you are floundering in something you thought about during your "im never posting again" absence.... Ignoring the fact it turned out a lie of course

I asked YOU what YOU think the debt level stands at.

My debate with wez was based on what the debt stands at TO THE CLUB not to Tan. If £30m of transfers are owed next December then if he sells up before then HE is not liable for it. think about it brains

And who the f**k is going to buy a club that has zero assets to sell and 30m of debt

Negative equity. You lost.

Goodnight.

80m if you listen to Tan, 120m acording to you and 150m acvording to Annis.

Whichever one you go for you lose an argument or are proved to be a liar.

CHECK MATE

Is this new "liar" jibe you attribute to every debate you are floundering in something you thought about during your "im never posting again" absence.... Ignoring the fact it turned out a lie of course

I asked YOU what YOU think the debt level stands at.

My debate with wez was based on what the debt stands at TO THE CLUB not to Tan. If £30m of transfers are owed next December then if he sells up before then HE is not liable for it. think about it brains

And who the f**k is going to buy a club that has zero assets to sell and 30m of debt

Negative equity. You lost.

Goodnight.

Probably someone that sees the £30m of debt being offset by £30m of guaranteed Parachute payments. Meaning they have a club int he capital with a 30,000 stadium for cheap

Not to mention historical income of £15m per annum with minimal outgoings.

Please dont talk business, its embarrassing

80m if you listen to Tan, 120m acording to you and 150m acvording to Annis.

Whichever one you go for you lose an argument or are proved to be a liar.

CHECK MATE

Is this new "liar" jibe you attribute to every debate you are floundering in something you thought about during your "im never posting again" absence.... Ignoring the fact it turned out a lie of course

I asked YOU what YOU think the debt level stands at.

My debate with wez was based on what the debt stands at TO THE CLUB not to Tan. If £30m of transfers are owed next December then if he sells up before then HE is not liable for it. think about it brains

And who the f**k is going to buy a club that has zero assets to sell and 30m of debt

Negative equity. You lost.

Goodnight.

Probably someone that sees the £30m of debt being offset by £30m of guaranteed Parachute payments. Meaning they have a club int he capital with a 30,000 stadium for cheap

Not to mention historical income of £15m per annum with minimal outgoings.

Please dont talk business, its embarrassing

Youve just given the parachute payments and next years season ticket money to Tan and with a conference set up as you stated earlier where the f**k is the 15m annual income going to come from?

Youve just given the parachute payments and next years season ticket money to Tan and with a conference set up as you stated earlier where the f**k is the 15m annual income going to come from?

What did I just say about talking business and embarrassing yourself? Please head my advice. Its painful

£20m of parachute payments Tan will pocket. Leaving £30m paid over 24 months, meaning any debt left up to £30m is offset by guaranteed future revenue.

In terms of cash - THIS years season ticket money will go to Tan not next seasons.

£15m annual income is the income you get in the championship, not sure which bit is confusing you there which also isnt far off from what we were earning in the Championship with 15,000 crowds (£12m i think)

Youve just given the parachute payments and next years season ticket money to Tan and with a conference set up as you stated earlier where the f**k is the 15m annual income going to come from?

What did I just say about talking business and embarrassing yourself? Please head my advice. Its painful

£20m of parachute payments Tan will pocket. Leaving £30m paid over 24 months, meaning any debt left up to £30m is offset by guaranteed future revenue.

In terms of cash - THIS years season ticket money will go to Tan not next seasons.

£15m annual income is the income you get in the championship, not sure which bit is confusing you there.

2013/14 season ticket money is long gone.

2014/15 is what is coming in now and the 8m youve earmarked for Tan along with this years 20m parachute payment.

So thats no players, no training ground, and you are exoecting someone to buy for 15m and inherit 30m of debt.

I dont think so.

Negative equity or lying to Wez. Which one?

Youve just given the parachute payments and next years season ticket money to Tan and with a conference set up as you stated earlier where the f**k is the 15m annual income going to come from?

What did I just say about talking business and embarrassing yourself? Please head my advice. Its painful

£20m of parachute payments Tan will pocket. Leaving £30m paid over 24 months, meaning any debt left up to £30m is offset by guaranteed future revenue.

In terms of cash - THIS years season ticket money will go to Tan not next seasons.

£15m annual income is the income you get in the championship, not sure which bit is confusing you there.

2013/14 season ticket money is long gone.

2014/15 is what is coming in now and the 8m youve earmarked for Tan along with this years 20m parachute payment.

So thats no players, no training ground, and you are exoecting someone to buy for 15m and inherit 30m of debt.

I dont think so.

Negative equity or lying to Wez. Which one?

It makes no difference when the ticket is valid for. The money is active as soon as it comes in, the money isnt handed over and only allowed to spend once the ticket date is reached.

The £8m or so ticket money this year (for next years games) can be kept by Tan to offset any loan notes up to that value.

Which bit of £30m debt is offset by £30m parachute money is confusing you?

£15m for a championship club with no debt and a historical championship income of £15m per annum - in the capital is a bargain. No two ways about it.

Lunacy to suggest otherwise.

As for your last comment that screams "I DONT UNDERSTAND"

Being £80m in debt to Tan is completely different to being £120m in debt as a club. Currently at £80m you are not in negative equity.

Tan owns club.

Club owes120m.

Assets are 90m

Negative Equity

The End

Tan owns club.

Club owes120m.

Assets are 90m

Negative Equity

The End

My name is polo

I dont understand this at all

If i do a poem then maybe ill be right

Although i clearly am as wrong as anyone can be

End of.

Give your views on Vincent Tan and foreign ownership in the Premier League by filling out this quick 2 minute survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1vXbLkr ... 0/viewform