" Questions re our debt/finances ideally Since62? "

I presume because of the title of this thread that the references to the accountant and a claimed change of thoughts are to me so maybe it is useful for me to set out the actual facts for clarification.

I was opposed to the rebrand right from the initial meeting where it was announced by Alan Whiteley and Julian Jenkins. I was present at the meeting and tried to stress my view then that it was not supported by any business need or case. Alan confirmed at the meeting that he and the club board had not been given any such explanation either but had been told to accept it because Vincent Tan wanted it.
I understood the need for the club to get funding to help deal with its debts but only on the basis that the promise that all money put in would not increase the debts but be written off or converted into shares.That was also the basis upon which the club directors accepted the investment.
I have never changed my stance on this throughout the period since, largely because there has still not been a marketing or business benefit explanation put forward. Indeed the current Chairman Mehmet Dalman said ( to my face) that no such business reason had ever existed but that the requirement for the colour change was now said by Vincent Tan to be for "spiritual" reasons.
I have only met Vincent Tan once, at a meeting with a number of other supporter group representatives. At that meeting he made a speech which can only be described as " rambling"( others like Vince who was there can confirm this) about "lucky red", the power of dragons etc. and made a claim ( which I genuinely think he believed based on his employees being scared to tell him the truth) that only a tiny percentage of City fans were opposed to the rebrand. During the meeting he was shown a copy of the fans survey which showed that the vast majority of fans were against it, but ignored it as it contradicted his own statement. At the end of the meeting he told ( not even requested) that those there go back to the groups they represented and TELL them to like the red.

I believe that Vincent Tan made a huge business mistake with the rebrand because of a total lack of understanding of how football and it's fan base works, because of not being able to deal with the huge cultural differences between the Chinese and the UK, and because of only employing senior management that give him advice that they think he wants to hear rather than best advice. Employing people up to CEO level with no football knowledge has also not helped.

I have never disliked Vincent Tan as a person because I don't know him but I have always hated how he caused such huge division in the fan base and caused so many previously loyal fans to stop supporting the club. And to be honest, based on his recent track record which has seen him lose a large percentage of his wealth on projects other than CCFC, don't rate him anywhere near as highly as a businessman as others do. For those who say he must be a great businessman because of his wealth , I would ask them to look at what Malaysian government "favours" he received to create much of that wealth.

As for the Trust , I have been fully involved since it started, so couldn't have changed my views since I have v
Become "more involved"

Keith

My personal view of Tan and the rebrand are pretty much similar. I think there was an obvious clash of cultures and Tan had no idea of how the rebrand would impact. In fairness we were averaging 27000 while playing in red and to an outsider that would appear to be acceptance.

What he didn't understand is the impact of relegation/failure on the fickle fan base. I also believe he was a victim to the cut throat football business and was clearly ripped off in the transfer market. Malky's blame in that is open to debate but he certainly was a factor.

Tan as a businessman is an interesting subject. I have read about him and his wealth seems to have been accumulated by striking some very helpful Government projects and employing yes men.

It is such a shame that we have missed a golden opportunity and if only we could have pointed to the blue kit of Leicester City as an example of a team coming from nowhere! That could have been us

Once his opinion of Tan changed so did his thoughts. I'm not going to back it up, just an observation.

I think as he got more involved with the trust possibly?

I presume because of the title of this thread that the references to the accountant and a claimed change of thoughts are to me so maybe it is useful for me to set out the actual facts for clarification.

I was opposed to the rebrand right from the initial meeting where it was announced by Alan Whiteley and Julian Jenkins. I was present at the meeting and tried to stress my view then that it was not supported by any business need or case. Alan confirmed at the meeting that he and the club board had not been given any such explanation either but had been told to accept it because Vincent Tan wanted it.
I understood the need for the club to get funding to help deal with its debts but only on the basis that the promise that all money put in would not increase the debts but be written off or converted into shares.That was also the basis upon which the club directors accepted the investment.
I have never changed my stance on this throughout the period since, largely because there has still not been a marketing or business benefit explanation put forward. Indeed the current Chairman Mehmet Dalman said ( to my face) that no such business reason had ever existed but that the requirement for the colour change was now said by Vincent Tan to be for "spiritual" reasons.
I have only met Vincent Tan once, at a meeting with a number of other supporter group representatives. At that meeting he made a speech which can only be described as " rambling"( others like Vince who was there can confirm this) about "lucky red", the power of dragons etc. and made a claim ( which I genuinely think he believed based on his employees being scared to tell him the truth) that only a tiny percentage of City fans were opposed to the rebrand. During the meeting he was shown a copy of the fans survey which showed that the vast majority of fans were against it, but ignored it as it contradicted his own statement. At the end of the meeting he told ( not even requested) that those there go back to the groups they represented and TELL them to like the red.

I believe that Vincent Tan made a huge business mistake with the rebrand because of a total lack of understanding of how football and it's fan base works, because of not being able to deal with the huge cultural differences between the Chinese and the UK, and because of only employing senior management that give him advice that they think he wants to hear rather than best advice. Employing people up to CEO level with no football knowledge has also not helped.

I have never disliked Vincent Tan as a person because I don't know him but I have always hated how he caused such huge division in the fan base and caused so many previously loyal fans to stop supporting the club. And to be honest, based on his recent track record which has seen him lose a large percentage of his wealth on projects other than CCFC, don't rate him anywhere near as highly as a businessman as others do. For those who say he must be a great businessman because of his wealth , I would ask them to look at what Malaysian government "favours" he received to create much of that wealth.

As for the Trust , I have been fully involved since it started, so couldn't have changed my views since I have v
Become "more involved"

Keith

Not at all with regards the original post I respect your knowledge of our accounts. You also explain things well. I asked simple questions. 2 blue mentioned your views changed I summised it was possibly due to involvement with trust.

Sorry, my response was a general one,not a specific one to your post as I was trying to get a response to a few points raised at the same time.