Cardiff City/Championship debt table

The debt to equity wasn't conditional on the rebrand. If you look online to his televised interview in July 2013 (when he got his honorary degree from USW) he promised to convert his debt ( which he quotes as £130 m) to shares as soon as he signed an agreement with Langston,which he did within a week. The shirt colour was irrelevant to that decision and promise.

That is totally wrong. The original promise was to invest £100m in exchange for the rebrand and made after the conclusion of the 2011/12 season.

The £100m would fund a new training ground, debt to equity, stadium expansion and players to push for a promotion bid in 2012/13 and all this would only take place if the club/supporters agreed to the rebrand, in other words it was fundamental.

Pointing to a video made 12 months later and taking what was said out of context does-not prove anything.

Tony

I have looked at the video again and it has confirmed that I have not taken anything out of context.

Look at it yourself (search Vincent Tan honorary degree)and you will clearly see that Mr Tan states that he was owed £130m at the time -July 2013- and that all of it would be converted into shares as soon as he signed up an agreement with Langston , a deal which he said was imminent. No other conditions attached to the offer and the Langston deal was signed within days after the interview. So simply a case of not honouring his word.

The debt to equity wasn't conditional on the rebrand. If you look online to his televised interview in July 2013 (when he got his honorary degree from USW) he promised to convert his debt ( which he quotes as £130 m) to shares as soon as he signed an agreement with Langston,which he did within a week. The shirt colour was irrelevant to that decision and promise.

That is totally wrong. The original promise was to invest £100m in exchange for the rebrand and made after the conclusion of the 2011/12 season.

The £100m would fund a new training ground, debt to equity, stadium expansion and players to push for a promotion bid in 2012/13 and all this would only take place if the club/supporters agreed to the rebrand, in other words it was fundamental.

Pointing to a video made 12 months later and taking what was said out of context does-not prove anything.

Tony

I have looked at the video again and it has confirmed that I have not taken anything out of context.


Look at it yourself (search Vincent Tan honorary degree)and you will clearly see that Mr Tan states that he was owed £130m at the time -July 2013- and that all of it would be converted into shares as soon as he signed up an agreement with Langston , a deal which he said was imminent. No other conditions attached to the offer and the Langston deal was signed within days after the interview. So simply a case of not honouring his word.

You don't get the point at all. At the time we were in red so Tan probably intended to convert debt to shares. As Tony pointed out the 100 million investment (which would then be converted to shares) was provided we were rebranded when we changed back to blue that took that away.

The debt to equity wasn't conditional on the rebrand. If you look online to his televised interview in July 2013 (when he got his honorary degree from USW) he promised to convert his debt ( which he quotes as £130 m) to shares as soon as he signed an agreement with Langston,which he did within a week. The shirt colour was irrelevant to that decision and promise.

That is totally wrong. The original promise was to invest £100m in exchange for the rebrand and made after the conclusion of the 2011/12 season.

The £100m would fund a new training ground, debt to equity, stadium expansion and players to push for a promotion bid in 2012/13 and all this would only take place if the club/supporters agreed to the rebrand, in other words it was fundamental.

Pointing to a video made 12 months later and taking what was said out of context does-not prove anything.

Tony

I have looked at the video again and it has confirmed that I have not taken anything out of context.


Look at it yourself (search Vincent Tan honorary degree)and you will clearly see that Mr Tan states that he was owed £130m at the time -July 2013- and that all of it would be converted into shares as soon as he signed up an agreement with Langston , a deal which he said was imminent. No other conditions attached to the offer and the Langston deal was signed within days after the interview. So simply a case of not honouring his word.

You don't get the point at all. At the time we were in red so Tan probably intended to convert debt to shares. As Tony pointed out the 100 million investment (which would then be converted to shares) was provided we were rebranded when we changed back to blue that took that away.

Neil/Tony

You buy a house by taking out a mortgage. Two years later the value of your house drops. Does that mean you don't pay the mortgage. Of course not. The major factor here was that we were rebranded, that is he took out the mortgage. The fact that attendances have dropped or were plummeting forcing him to do a U-turn does NOT mean the debt equity promise can be quashed.

Because he did a U turn does not mean the promise of debt to equity

The debt to equity wasn't conditional on the rebrand. If you look online to his televised interview in July 2013 (when he got his honorary degree from USW) he promised to convert his debt ( which he quotes as £130 m) to shares as soon as he signed an agreement with Langston,which he did within a week. The shirt colour was irrelevant to that decision and promise.

That is totally wrong. The original promise was to invest £100m in exchange for the rebrand and made after the conclusion of the 2011/12 season.

The £100m would fund a new training ground, debt to equity, stadium expansion and players to push for a promotion bid in 2012/13 and all this would only take place if the club/supporters agreed to the rebrand, in other words it was fundamental.

Pointing to a video made 12 months later and taking what was said out of context does-not prove anything.

Tony

I have looked at the video again and it has confirmed that I have not taken anything out of context.


Look at it yourself (search Vincent Tan honorary degree)and you will clearly see that Mr Tan states that he was owed £130m at the time -July 2013- and that all of it would be converted into shares as soon as he signed up an agreement with Langston , a deal which he said was imminent. No other conditions attached to the offer and the Langston deal was signed within days after the interview. So simply a case of not honouring his word.

You don't get the point at all. At the time we were in red so Tan probably intended to convert debt to shares. As Tony pointed out the 100 million investment (which would then be converted to shares) was provided we were rebranded when we changed back to blue that took that away.

Neil/Tony

You buy a house by taking out a mortgage. Two years later the value of your house drops. Does that mean you don't pay the mortgage. Of course not. The major factor here was that we were rebranded, that is he took out the mortgage. The fact that attendances have dropped or were plummeting forcing him to do a U-turn does NOT mean the debt equity promise can be quashed.

Because he did a U turn does not mean the promise of debt to equity

Ridiculous analogy Ian.

So the protests had nothing to do with his U turn?

The debt to equity wasn't conditional on the rebrand. If you look online to his televised interview in July 2013 (when he got his honorary degree from USW) he promised to convert his debt ( which he quotes as £130 m) to shares as soon as he signed an agreement with Langston,which he did within a week. The shirt colour was irrelevant to that decision and promise.

That is totally wrong. The original promise was to invest £100m in exchange for the rebrand and made after the conclusion of the 2011/12 season.

The £100m would fund a new training ground, debt to equity, stadium expansion and players to push for a promotion bid in 2012/13 and all this would only take place if the club/supporters agreed to the rebrand, in other words it was fundamental.

Pointing to a video made 12 months later and taking what was said out of context does-not prove anything.

Tony

I have looked at the video again and it has confirmed that I have not taken anything out of context.


Look at it yourself (search Vincent Tan honorary degree)and you will clearly see that Mr Tan states that he was owed £130m at the time -July 2013- and that all of it would be converted into shares as soon as he signed up an agreement with Langston , a deal which he said was imminent. No other conditions attached to the offer and the Langston deal was signed within days after the interview. So simply a case of not honouring his word.

You don't get the point at all. At the time we were in red so Tan probably intended to convert debt to shares. As Tony pointed out the 100 million investment (which would then be converted to shares) was provided we were rebranded when we changed back to blue that took that away.

Neil/Tony

You buy a house by taking out a mortgage. Two years later the value of your house drops. Does that mean you don't pay the mortgage. Of course not. The major factor here was that we were rebranded, that is he took out the mortgage. The fact that attendances have dropped or were plummeting forcing him to do a U-turn does NOT mean the debt equity promise can be quashed.

Because he did a U turn does not mean the promise of debt to equity

Ridiculous analogy Ian.

So the protests had nothing to do with his U turn?

But have you not been saying these protests were not well supported? So why should they have anything to do with it?

No the U turn was done on the fear of a total collapse of support. A bit like your house losing value for one reason or another. Tan relied on the plastic support to keep the value of his house up. Remember he was not worried about losing 25% of his customers. Well guess what he was on his way to losing a lot more than that. Was there an agreement that attendances had to reach certian levels else all deals were off?

The debt to equity wasn't conditional on the rebrand. If you look online to his televised interview in July 2013 (when he got his honorary degree from USW) he promised to convert his debt ( which he quotes as £130 m) to shares as soon as he signed an agreement with Langston,which he did within a week. The shirt colour was irrelevant to that decision and promise.

That is totally wrong. The original promise was to invest £100m in exchange for the rebrand and made after the conclusion of the 2011/12 season.

The £100m would fund a new training ground, debt to equity, stadium expansion and players to push for a promotion bid in 2012/13 and all this would only take place if the club/supporters agreed to the rebrand, in other words it was fundamental.

Pointing to a video made 12 months later and taking what was said out of context does-not prove anything.

Tony

I have looked at the video again and it has confirmed that I have not taken anything out of context.


Look at it yourself (search Vincent Tan honorary degree)and you will clearly see that Mr Tan states that he was owed £130m at the time -July 2013- and that all of it would be converted into shares as soon as he signed up an agreement with Langston , a deal which he said was imminent. No other conditions attached to the offer and the Langston deal was signed within days after the interview. So simply a case of not honouring his word.

You don't get the point at all. At the time we were in red so Tan probably intended to convert debt to shares. As Tony pointed out the 100 million investment (which would then be converted to shares) was provided we were rebranded when we changed back to blue that took that away.

Neil/Tony

You buy a house by taking out a mortgage. Two years later the value of your house drops. Does that mean you don't pay the mortgage. Of course not. The major factor here was that we were rebranded, that is he took out the mortgage. The fact that attendances have dropped or were plummeting forcing him to do a U-turn does NOT mean the debt equity promise can be quashed.

Because he did a U turn does not mean the promise of debt to equity

Ridiculous analogy Ian.

So the protests had nothing to do with his U turn?

But have you not been saying these protests were not well supported? So why should they have anything to do with it?

No the U turn was done on the fear of a total collapse of support. A bit like your house losing value for one reason or another. Tan relied on the plastic support to keep the value of his house up. Remember he was not worried about losing 25% of his customers. Well guess what he was on his way to losing a lot more than that. Was there an agreement that attendances had to reach certian levels else all deals were off?

I have never said they weren't well supported protests. I have said two things about the protests. 1) when they were the original BU led protests there were very few protesting. 2) the protests grew in number the worse we did on the pitch which is what I have always maintained. When doing well people weren't bothered.

Either way the debt to equity was linked to the rebrand as the rebrand was linked to the 100 million investment of which the debt to equity was a follow on from this. Rebrand reversal means the debt to equity is no longer on the table. The sooner we deal with that the better. Tan has as is obvious by the savings that are being made.

The debt to equity wasn't conditional on the rebrand. If you look online to his televised interview in July 2013 (when he got his honorary degree from USW) he promised to convert his debt ( which he quotes as £130 m) to shares as soon as he signed an agreement with Langston,which he did within a week. The shirt colour was irrelevant to that decision and promise.

That is totally wrong. The original promise was to invest £100m in exchange for the rebrand and made after the conclusion of the 2011/12 season.

The £100m would fund a new training ground, debt to equity, stadium expansion and players to push for a promotion bid in 2012/13 and all this would only take place if the club/supporters agreed to the rebrand, in other words it was fundamental.

Pointing to a video made 12 months later and taking what was said out of context does-not prove anything.

Tony

I have looked at the video again and it has confirmed that I have not taken anything out of context.


Look at it yourself (search Vincent Tan honorary degree)and you will clearly see that Mr Tan states that he was owed £130m at the time -July 2013- and that all of it would be converted into shares as soon as he signed up an agreement with Langston , a deal which he said was imminent. No other conditions attached to the offer and the Langston deal was signed within days after the interview. So simply a case of not honouring his word.

You don't get the point at all. At the time we were in red so Tan probably intended to convert debt to shares. As Tony pointed out the 100 million investment (which would then be converted to shares) was provided we were rebranded when we changed back to blue that took that away.

So to support the logic of your argument,could you explain why Tan gave the public,recorded,promise to convert all of his debt to equity but failed to do so in the 18 months between making that promise (linked only to agreeing a deal with Langston which happened very shortly thereafter) and the first suggestion of a reversion to blue?

If,as you claim, he hasn't done the conversion because of the reversal of change of kit colours, what happened to the broken promise throughout that period.

And it also has to be remembered that he chose to reverse the rebrand himself as he could clearly see, and was being strongly advised and demonstrated by Mehmet Dalman and Ken Choo , that the original rebrand decision had been a badly flawed one from the outset and was an ever increasing financial disaster. The bits about "mum told me to" were , as everyone knows, just a smokescreen to save "face" while extracting himself from that particular financial "faux pas"

The debt to equity wasn't conditional on the rebrand. If you look online to his televised interview in July 2013 (when he got his honorary degree from USW) he promised to convert his debt ( which he quotes as £130 m) to shares as soon as he signed an agreement with Langston,which he did within a week. The shirt colour was irrelevant to that decision and promise.

That is totally wrong. The original promise was to invest £100m in exchange for the rebrand and made after the conclusion of the 2011/12 season.

The £100m would fund a new training ground, debt to equity, stadium expansion and players to push for a promotion bid in 2012/13 and all this would only take place if the club/supporters agreed to the rebrand, in other words it was fundamental.

Pointing to a video made 12 months later and taking what was said out of context does-not prove anything.

Tony

I have looked at the video again and it has confirmed that I have not taken anything out of context.


Look at it yourself (search Vincent Tan honorary degree)and you will clearly see that Mr Tan states that he was owed £130m at the time -July 2013- and that all of it would be converted into shares as soon as he signed up an agreement with Langston , a deal which he said was imminent. No other conditions attached to the offer and the Langston deal was signed within days after the interview. So simply a case of not honouring his word.

You don't get the point at all. At the time we were in red so Tan probably intended to convert debt to shares. As Tony pointed out the 100 million investment (which would then be converted to shares) was provided we were rebranded when we changed back to blue that took that away.

So to support the logic of your argument,could you explain why Tan gave the public,recorded,promise to convert all of his debt to equity but failed to do so in the 18 months between making that promise (linked only to agreeing a deal with Langston which happened very shortly thereafter) and the first suggestion of a reversion to blue?

If,as you claim, he hasn't done the conversion because of the reversal of change of kit colours, what happened to the broken promise throughout that period.

And it also has to be remembered that he chose to reverse the rebrand himself as he could clearly see, and was being strongly advised and demonstrated by Mehmet Dalman and Ken Choo , that the original rebrand decision had been a badly flawed one from the outset and was an ever increasing financial disaster. The bits about "mum told me to" were , as everyone knows, just a smokescreen to save "face" while extracting himself from that particular financial "faux pas"

He didn't own the whole club due to Isaac not selling his shares.

The debt to equity wasn't conditional on the rebrand. If you look online to his televised interview in July 2013 (when he got his honorary degree from USW) he promised to convert his debt ( which he quotes as £130 m) to shares as soon as he signed an agreement with Langston,which he did within a week. The shirt colour was irrelevant to that decision and promise.

That is totally wrong. The original promise was to invest £100m in exchange for the rebrand and made after the conclusion of the 2011/12 season.

The £100m would fund a new training ground, debt to equity, stadium expansion and players to push for a promotion bid in 2012/13 and all this would only take place if the club/supporters agreed to the rebrand, in other words it was fundamental.

Pointing to a video made 12 months later and taking what was said out of context does-not prove anything.

Tony

I have looked at the video again and it has confirmed that I have not taken anything out of context.


Look at it yourself (search Vincent Tan honorary degree)and you will clearly see that Mr Tan states that he was owed £130m at the time -July 2013- and that all of it would be converted into shares as soon as he signed up an agreement with Langston , a deal which he said was imminent. No other conditions attached to the offer and the Langston deal was signed within days after the interview. So simply a case of not honouring his word.

You don't get the point at all. At the time we were in red so Tan probably intended to convert debt to shares. As Tony pointed out the 100 million investment (which would then be converted to shares) was provided we were rebranded when we changed back to blue that took that away.

So to support the logic of your argument,could you explain why Tan gave the public,recorded,promise to convert all of his debt to equity but failed to do so in the 18 months between making that promise (linked only to agreeing a deal with Langston which happened very shortly thereafter) and the first suggestion of a reversion to blue?

If,as you claim, he hasn't done the conversion because of the reversal of change of kit colours, what happened to the broken promise throughout that period.

And it also has to be remembered that he chose to reverse the rebrand himself as he could clearly see, and was being strongly advised and demonstrated by Mehmet Dalman and Ken Choo , that the original rebrand decision had been a badly flawed one from the outset and was an ever increasing financial disaster. The bits about "mum told me to" were , as everyone knows, just a smokescreen to save "face" while extracting himself from that particular financial "faux pas"

He didn't own the whole club due to Isaac not selling his shares.

He didn't have to own all the shares. He already had more than enough shares to pass any resolutions he wanted without all the other shareholders added together being able to block him. If he had done the conversion of the debt as well it was such a big amount that he would have held 99.9% of the shares?So that explanation makes no sense at all.
The simple truth of the matter is that Vincent Tan reneged on his promise.

The debt to equity wasn't conditional on the rebrand. If you look online to his televised interview in July 2013 (when he got his honorary degree from USW) he promised to convert his debt ( which he quotes as £130 m) to shares as soon as he signed an agreement with Langston,which he did within a week. The shirt colour was irrelevant to that decision and promise.

That is totally wrong. The original promise was to invest £100m in exchange for the rebrand and made after the conclusion of the 2011/12 season.

The £100m would fund a new training ground, debt to equity, stadium expansion and players to push for a promotion bid in 2012/13 and all this would only take place if the club/supporters agreed to the rebrand, in other words it was fundamental.

Pointing to a video made 12 months later and taking what was said out of context does-not prove anything.

Tony

I have looked at the video again and it has confirmed that I have not taken anything out of context.


Look at it yourself (search Vincent Tan honorary degree)and you will clearly see that Mr Tan states that he was owed £130m at the time -July 2013- and that all of it would be converted into shares as soon as he signed up an agreement with Langston , a deal which he said was imminent. No other conditions attached to the offer and the Langston deal was signed within days after the interview. So simply a case of not honouring his word.

You don't get the point at all. At the time we were in red so Tan probably intended to convert debt to shares. As Tony pointed out the 100 million investment (which would then be converted to shares) was provided we were rebranded when we changed back to blue that took that away.

So to support the logic of your argument,could you explain why Tan gave the public,recorded,promise to convert all of his debt to equity but failed to do so in the 18 months between making that promise (linked only to agreeing a deal with Langston which happened very shortly thereafter) and the first suggestion of a reversion to blue?

If,as you claim, he hasn't done the conversion because of the reversal of change of kit colours, what happened to the broken promise throughout that period.

And it also has to be remembered that he chose to reverse the rebrand himself as he could clearly see, and was being strongly advised and demonstrated by Mehmet Dalman and Ken Choo , that the original rebrand decision had been a badly flawed one from the outset and was an ever increasing financial disaster. The bits about "mum told me to" were , as everyone knows, just a smokescreen to save "face" while extracting himself from that particular financial "faux pas"

He didn't own the whole club due to Isaac not selling his shares.

He didn't have to own all the shares. He already had more than enough shares to pass any resolutions he wanted without all the other shareholders added together being able to block him. If he had done the conversion of the debt as well it was such a big amount that he would have held 99.9% of the shares?So that explanation makes no sense at all.
The simple truth of the matter is that Vincent Tan reneged on his promise.

As did we by protesting against the rebrand when results on the pitch started to turn for the worse. He paid Langstone off, extended the stadium, bought players and other promises he made I'm sure he would have converted had the rebrand not been reversed. However we will never know will we?

The debt to equity wasn't conditional on the rebrand. If you look online to his televised interview in July 2013 (when he got his honorary degree from USW) he promised to convert his debt ( which he quotes as £130 m) to shares as soon as he signed an agreement with Langston,which he did within a week. The shirt colour was irrelevant to that decision and promise.

That is totally wrong. The original promise was to invest £100m in exchange for the rebrand and made after the conclusion of the 2011/12 season.

The £100m would fund a new training ground, debt to equity, stadium expansion and players to push for a promotion bid in 2012/13 and all this would only take place if the club/supporters agreed to the rebrand, in other words it was fundamental.

Pointing to a video made 12 months later and taking what was said out of context does-not prove anything.

Tony

I have looked at the video again and it has confirmed that I have not taken anything out of context.


Look at it yourself (search Vincent Tan honorary degree)and you will clearly see that Mr Tan states that he was owed £130m at the time -July 2013- and that all of it would be converted into shares as soon as he signed up an agreement with Langston , a deal which he said was imminent. No other conditions attached to the offer and the Langston deal was signed within days after the interview. So simply a case of not honouring his word.

You don't get the point at all. At the time we were in red so Tan probably intended to convert debt to shares. As Tony pointed out the 100 million investment (which would then be converted to shares) was provided we were rebranded when we changed back to blue that took that away.

So to support the logic of your argument,could you explain why Tan gave the public,recorded,promise to convert all of his debt to equity but failed to do so in the 18 months between making that promise (linked only to agreeing a deal with Langston which happened very shortly thereafter) and the first suggestion of a reversion to blue?

If,as you claim, he hasn't done the conversion because of the reversal of change of kit colours, what happened to the broken promise throughout that period.

And it also has to be remembered that he chose to reverse the rebrand himself as he could clearly see, and was being strongly advised and demonstrated by Mehmet Dalman and Ken Choo , that the original rebrand decision had been a badly flawed one from the outset and was an ever increasing financial disaster. The bits about "mum told me to" were , as everyone knows, just a smokescreen to save "face" while extracting himself from that particular financial "faux pas"

He didn't own the whole club due to Isaac not selling his shares.

He didn't have to own all the shares. He already had more than enough shares to pass any resolutions he wanted without all the other shareholders added together being able to block him. If he had done the conversion of the debt as well it was such a big amount that he would have held 99.9% of the shares?So that explanation makes no sense at all.
The simple truth of the matter is that Vincent Tan reneged on his promise.

As did we by protesting against the rebrand when results on the pitch started to turn for the worse. He paid Langstone off, extended the stadium, bought players and other promises he made I'm sure he would have converted had the rebrand not been reversed. However we will never know will we?

But you are still avoiding answering my point that he didn't convert two years ago when he promised he would or in the subsequent 18 months or so before any reversal of the rebrand was mooted.
Do you now agree that it was nothing to do with the reversal of the rebrand or shares held by Michael Isaac as I can't see how either of your claims on this hold any water?

The debt to equity wasn't conditional on the rebrand. If you look online to his televised interview in July 2013 (when he got his honorary degree from USW) he promised to convert his debt ( which he quotes as £130 m) to shares as soon as he signed an agreement with Langston,which he did within a week. The shirt colour was irrelevant to that decision and promise.

That is totally wrong. The original promise was to invest £100m in exchange for the rebrand and made after the conclusion of the 2011/12 season.

The £100m would fund a new training ground, debt to equity, stadium expansion and players to push for a promotion bid in 2012/13 and all this would only take place if the club/supporters agreed to the rebrand, in other words it was fundamental.

Pointing to a video made 12 months later and taking what was said out of context does-not prove anything.

Tony

I have looked at the video again and it has confirmed that I have not taken anything out of context.


Look at it yourself (search Vincent Tan honorary degree)and you will clearly see that Mr Tan states that he was owed £130m at the time -July 2013- and that all of it would be converted into shares as soon as he signed up an agreement with Langston , a deal which he said was imminent. No other conditions attached to the offer and the Langston deal was signed within days after the interview. So simply a case of not honouring his word.

You don't get the point at all. At the time we were in red so Tan probably intended to convert debt to shares. As Tony pointed out the 100 million investment (which would then be converted to shares) was provided we were rebranded when we changed back to blue that took that away.

So to support the logic of your argument,could you explain why Tan gave the public,recorded,promise to convert all of his debt to equity but failed to do so in the 18 months between making that promise (linked only to agreeing a deal with Langston which happened very shortly thereafter) and the first suggestion of a reversion to blue?

If,as you claim, he hasn't done the conversion because of the reversal of change of kit colours, what happened to the broken promise throughout that period.

And it also has to be remembered that he chose to reverse the rebrand himself as he could clearly see, and was being strongly advised and demonstrated by Mehmet Dalman and Ken Choo , that the original rebrand decision had been a badly flawed one from the outset and was an ever increasing financial disaster. The bits about "mum told me to" were , as everyone knows, just a smokescreen to save "face" while extracting himself from that particular financial "faux pas"

He didn't own the whole club due to Isaac not selling his shares.

He didn't have to own all the shares. He already had more than enough shares to pass any resolutions he wanted without all the other shareholders added together being able to block him. If he had done the conversion of the debt as well it was such a big amount that he would have held 99.9% of the shares?So that explanation makes no sense at all.
The simple truth of the matter is that Vincent Tan reneged on his promise.

As did we by protesting against the rebrand when results on the pitch started to turn for the worse. He paid Langstone off, extended the stadium, bought players and other promises he made I'm sure he would have converted had the rebrand not been reversed. However we will never know will we?

But you are still avoiding answering my point that he didn't convert two years ago when he promised he would or in the subsequent 18 months or so before any reversal of the rebrand was mooted.
Do you now agree that it was nothing to do with the reversal of the rebrand or shares held by Michael Isaac as I can't see how either of your claims on this hold any water?

It was mentioned on here that he was awaiting the purchase of shares from Isaac who was being stubborn.

I think it was totally due to the fans' protests and disrespect of him that he didn't convert.

The debt to equity wasn't conditional on the rebrand. If you look online to his televised interview in July 2013 (when he got his honorary degree from USW) he promised to convert his debt ( which he quotes as £130 m) to shares as soon as he signed an agreement with Langston,which he did within a week. The shirt colour was irrelevant to that decision and promise.

That is totally wrong. The original promise was to invest £100m in exchange for the rebrand and made after the conclusion of the 2011/12 season.

The £100m would fund a new training ground, debt to equity, stadium expansion and players to push for a promotion bid in 2012/13 and all this would only take place if the club/supporters agreed to the rebrand, in other words it was fundamental.

Pointing to a video made 12 months later and taking what was said out of context does-not prove anything.

Tony

I have looked at the video again and it has confirmed that I have not taken anything out of context.


Look at it yourself (search Vincent Tan honorary degree)and you will clearly see that Mr Tan states that he was owed £130m at the time -July 2013- and that all of it would be converted into shares as soon as he signed up an agreement with Langston , a deal which he said was imminent. No other conditions attached to the offer and the Langston deal was signed within days after the interview. So simply a case of not honouring his word.

You don't get the point at all. At the time we were in red so Tan probably intended to convert debt to shares. As Tony pointed out the 100 million investment (which would then be converted to shares) was provided we were rebranded when we changed back to blue that took that away.

So to support the logic of your argument,could you explain why Tan gave the public,recorded,promise to convert all of his debt to equity but failed to do so in the 18 months between making that promise (linked only to agreeing a deal with Langston which happened very shortly thereafter) and the first suggestion of a reversion to blue?

If,as you claim, he hasn't done the conversion because of the reversal of change of kit colours, what happened to the broken promise throughout that period.

And it also has to be remembered that he chose to reverse the rebrand himself as he could clearly see, and was being strongly advised and demonstrated by Mehmet Dalman and Ken Choo , that the original rebrand decision had been a badly flawed one from the outset and was an ever increasing financial disaster. The bits about "mum told me to" were , as everyone knows, just a smokescreen to save "face" while extracting himself from that particular financial "faux pas"

He didn't own the whole club due to Isaac not selling his shares.

He didn't have to own all the shares. He already had more than enough shares to pass any resolutions he wanted without all the other shareholders added together being able to block him. If he had done the conversion of the debt as well it was such a big amount that he would have held 99.9% of the shares?So that explanation makes no sense at all.
The simple truth of the matter is that Vincent Tan reneged on his promise.

As did we by protesting against the rebrand when results on the pitch started to turn for the worse. He paid Langstone off, extended the stadium, bought players and other promises he made I'm sure he would have converted had the rebrand not been reversed. However we will never know will we?

But you are still avoiding answering my point that he didn't convert two years ago when he promised he would or in the subsequent 18 months or so before any reversal of the rebrand was mooted.
Do you now agree that it was nothing to do with the reversal of the rebrand or shares held by Michael Isaac as I can't see how either of your claims on this hold any water?

It was mentioned on here that he was awaiting the purchase of shares from Isaac who was being stubborn.

I think it was totally due to the fans' protests and disrespect of him that he didn't convert.

Hang on!

First of all you claimed it was because of the reversal of the rebrand - shown to be not the case

Then you claimed it was because he didn't own all the shares- shown to be irrelevant ( and still so whatever might have been said on this board about waiting for MI to sell as his holding was minimal and immaterial, and would have been even more so after a debt to equity conversion)

Now you say it was because of disrespect from the fans. Really? Was this "disrespect" obvious back in July 2013 when the promise was made for an imminent conversion.

I believe that Vincent Tan did some very good things for the club initially but being a man of honour in business dealings and sticking to his publicly made promises has not been one of them. It is perhaps ironic that his big project to build a huge shopping mall just outside Beijing has run into huge financial problems because of others with local government support and influence not sticking to their promises to him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23362625

I think this article shows that any intention to convert debt to shares was reliant on there being little kickback against the rebrand.

The main point that we will never agree is that I think Tan has no need to convert debt to shares as the rebrand has been reversed you think otherwise.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23362625

I think this article shows that any intention to convert debt to shares was reliant on there being little kickback against the rebrand.

The main point that we will never agree is that I think Tan has no need to convert debt to shares as the rebrand has been reversed you think otherwise.

Anyone reading that will realise that it says no such thing.

This is a written summary of the t.v. interview from July 2013 I have referred to in previous posts and clearly states that the only condition for converting all of Tan's debt to equity ( the article says it was £120m the video says it was £130m) is reaching agreement over the Langston debt and this happened a few days after. No other condition is mentioned or inferred.

If he is a man of his word then he should have done the conversion well before now. From your comment do you believe that he has no need to be honourable or his word trusted and that this was always the case for at least the 18 month period between making the promised referred to in the article and the rebrand reversal?

I find it quite ironic that Mr Tan has himself been the victim , at huge financial cost ,of someone else breaking their promises to him over his big retail development just outside Beijing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23362625

I think this article shows that any intention to convert debt to shares was reliant on there being little kickback against the rebrand.

The main point that we will never agree is that I think Tan has no need to convert debt to shares as the rebrand has been reversed you think otherwise.

Anyone reading that will realise that it says no such thing.

This is a written summary of the t.v. interview from July 2013 I have referred to in previous posts and clearly states that the only condition for converting all of Tan's debt to equity ( the article says it was £120m the video says it was £130m) is reaching agreement over the Langston debt and this happened a few days after. No other condition is mentioned or inferred.

If he is a man of his word then he should have done the conversion well before now. From your comment do you believe that he has no need to be honourable or his word trusted and that this was always the case for at least the 18 month period between making the promised referred to in the article and the rebrand reversal?

I find it quite ironic that Mr Tan has himself been the victim , at huge financial cost ,of someone else breaking their promises to him over his big retail development just outside Beijing.

Spot on Keith.