UPDATED: £6.6 MILLION PLUS COSTING CARDIFF CITY FC

Thanks for your explanation of the interest payments Paul, and also your thoughts on reasons of current financing of our club. I haven't quoted them as I'm aware long posts can cause grief if using a mobile!

I know it's sounding like a broken record whenever anybody refers to Sam. We all went through those dark days and Black Friday, and quite frankly we weren't sure if we would have a club at the end of it.

That said, Sam was THE MAN that rejuvenated our beleaguered club. He gave us hope, he gave us unity, he gave us promotions but unfortunately could not sustain it.

But you more or less quote Dalaman as stating "Tan will never sell to Sam". I just do not understand this intransigence from a purported "Businessman". If he is looking to get out, and Sam has tabled the best and reasonable offer, it makes no business sense at all.

I would have Sam back in a heartbeat; assuming I have the right protective gear at my age for the rollercoaster that would ensue.

As much as I detest Tan and will never forgive him for turning us red I have to say this thread is completely ridiculous

Without these loans the club takes out each year which Tan eventually rights off via debt to equity the club wouldn’t survive

The actual total income generated by the club I.e match day income, tv money, sponsorship etc wouldn’t even cover 60% of our current wage bill without all the other expenses

Without them we would have to get rid of probably NG, Goutas, Alnwick, Mcguiness, Ramsey, O Dowda, Ralls, Etete, Colwill and Siopis and replace them with kids

There is no way we would survive in the championship if we didn’t have the extra income from loans that is the plain and simple facts!!

So if anyone can come up with a better solution I would like to hear it??

Thanks for your explanation of the interest payments Paul, and also your thoughts on reasons of current financing of our club. I haven't quoted them as I'm aware long posts can cause grief if using a mobile!

I know it's sounding like a broken record whenever anybody refers to Sam. We all went through those dark days and Black Friday, and quite frankly we weren't sure if we would have a club at the end of it.

That said, Sam was THE MAN that rejuvenated our beleaguered club. He gave us hope, he gave us unity, he gave us promotions but unfortunately could not sustain it.

But you more or less quote Dalaman as stating "Tan will never sell to Sam". I just do not understand this intransigence from a purported "Businessman". If he is looking to get out, and Sam has tabled the best and reasonable offer, it makes no business sense at all.

I would have Sam back in a heartbeat; assuming I have the right protective gear at my age for the rollercoaster that would ensue.

No worries Jim, they can get too long, hope all good with you too mate.

Sam was the driving force behind us including getting the new stadium which allowed us to at least get in a position to get to the next level. I understand some people's opposition to him being involved again because of Black Friday etc but the truth is was that he was set up to fail so a few others could profit massively from it, that's what happened, he was stabbed in the back. It happens when money is involved in all walks of life, it's the way of the world when big money is involved.

But MDs comments are very specific about isolating a single individual as someone VT wouldn't sell to and presumably even id he has tabled a reasonable offer. It makes no business sense and especially given VTs finances and his wish to sell the club in a "better position than he found us" a s to a "suitable owner".

There maybe better options out there than even Sam but that would carry a risk plus they do not have the personal burning driver to compete unfinished business of achieving sustainable PL football status. They will not "get" the club like Sam and I would also doubt that they would have a track record of getting a club to the PL either.

And all VT has to do is sit back and let someone like Sam or the equivalent execute and achievable plan with a realistic budget and let them get on with it.

I think we can all agree football is a very murky business, with very little standards for investment rules, players poor contractual behaviour, contracts, agents. There is no real scrutiny or legislation you would see in the normal business world .

So GrangeEndStar are you saying as long as Tan stays at City, the debt is becoming bigger and even more loans, more interest, it has become a vicious circle?

As much as I detest Tan and will never forgive him for turning us red I have to say this thread is completely ridiculous

Without these loans the club takes out each year which Tan eventually rights off via debt to equity the club wouldn’t survive

The actual total income generated by the club I.e match day income, tv money, sponsorship etc wouldn’t even cover 60% of our current wage bill without all the other expenses

Without them we would have to get rid of probably NG, Goutas, Alnwick, Mcguiness, Ramsey, O Dowda, Ralls, Etete, Colwill and Siopis and replace them with kids

There is no way we would survive in the championship if we didn’t have the extra income from loans that is the plain and simple facts!!

So if anyone can come up with a better solution I would like to hear it??

Spot on tan bank rolls us each season by either writing off debt or converting it in to shares our debt without the write offs/conversion would be around 250-300 million .

As much as I detest Tan and will never forgive him for turning us red I have to say this thread is completely ridiculous

Without these loans the club takes out each year which Tan eventually rights off via debt to equity the club wouldn’t survive

The actual total income generated by the club I.e match day income, tv money, sponsorship etc wouldn’t even cover 60% of our current wage bill without all the other expenses

Without them we would have to get rid of probably NG, Goutas, Alnwick, Mcguiness, Ramsey, O Dowda, Ralls, Etete, Colwill and Siopis and replace them with kids

There is no way we would survive in the championship if we didn’t have the extra income from loans that is the plain and simple facts!!

So if anyone can come up with a better solution I would like to hear it??

With respect, your are missing the whole point, well at least what I've commented on anyway. No one is questioning that we are only functioning due to him personally funding the club via loans or his own capital.

All football clubs run at a loss. The question is by how much and is the owner able to service the debt and loans whist operating for growth. And in our case that growth will be completely determined by player budget.

Our specific problem is that the annual accounts summary statement specifies that there is concern about the owner being able or still willing to do that if identified risk scenarios happen and as to our ability to operate as a going concern.

And this also feeds into our old friend FFP, because our aggregate 3 year moving average losses due to our overall and ongoing position may mean that we now can't spend a reasonable budget, although we so have easements for next season which is great.

There is no question that VT can spend more of his families money to keep us going for quite a number of years. He may have to do that as it maybe difficult to access the loan market for an investor who is willing to lend money at an acceptable interest rate to a business that has so much debt as presents a risk. They may feel more comfortable investing it elsewhere because of that. I know I would as anything can happen in business - e.g. VT has lost half of his net worth wiped out in a very short time. And they will have read this and what the annual report statement says, that's a given.

So the exam question remain:

1: How long will VT continue to fund the club?
2: How can VT continue to fund the club, loans, personal wealth?
3: By how much more will VT continue to fund the club before he reaches a decision that he is either unwilling or unable to do so as his overall liability is currently over 50% of his net worth?

Something has to give at some point. That's for sure.

So If you were in his shoes and given the above, what would you do and at what point would enough be enough to either sell at a loss or change the structure as your only logical option to reverse the rot and mount a serious challenge and plan to achieve sustainable PL status?

As that's the only way he's going to get his £250M (and growing) back. And every year he fails to do that, his overall liability or what he thinks he's owed, just gets bigger and the hole gets deeper.

Mehmet Dalman Says:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=sha ... JHPfpOnDzg

Replies:

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

So GrangeEndStar are you saying as long as Tan stays at City, the debt is becoming bigger and even more loans, more interest, it has become a vicious circle?

As it stands and if he continues without making a structural change (best and most obvious option to us all) or sells at a loss, unless by some miracle that we get promoted via the play offs at some point over the next 3 to 5 years, and the percentage odds of that are significantly low for any club even with significant investment (I'm looking at you Hull) are shockingly low. And then you are in another world of pain.

If he was my uncle and I was part of the family business, I would have a mega "straightener" with him and tell him to stop f@cking about, grow a pair get and someone in. And whilst he's at it, to stop tucking his football shirt into his ridiculous pants as he looks like a tw#t.

So GrangeEndStar are you saying as long as Tan stays at City, the debt is becoming bigger and even more loans, more interest, it has become a vicious circle?

As it stands and if he continues without making a structural change (best and most obvious option to us all) or sells at a loss, unless by some miracle that we get promoted via the play offs at some point over the next 3 to 5 years, and the percentage odds of that are significantly low for any club even with significant investment (I'm looking at you Hull) are shockingly low. And then you are in another world of pain.

If he was my uncle and I was part of the family business, I would have a mega "straightener" with him and tell him to stop f@cking about, grow a pair get and someone in. And whilst he's at it, to stop tucking his football shirt into his ridiculous pants as he looks like a tw#t.

Thanks Grange for the prompt reply, he definitely needs to learn to dress, dresses like he runs the club

It's so hard to see a way out of this rut with Tan at the helm making all the decisions (all of which take an absolute age to make btw!).

On the one hand I think its only fair they charge interest on loans they give to the club. We've got to remember these guys are all business men first and foremost.

Having said that though, the decisions and general lack of planning and foresight are partly down to the reason why we as a club need continuous loans to keep us a float. It's a vicious circle that is all of Tans doing really.

Our achilles heel though is that we don't make any money from player sales. Other clubs sell one of our top players every other year for 10m+ and it relieves the burden on their finances...but we never do.

I also still firmly believe that we need a good solid DOF in. That's probably the most important investment we could make. Someone to run the show who has the football acumen needed. That (along with a striker haha) would be my no1 priority to help stop the rot!

So GrangeEndStar are you saying as long as Tan stays at City, the debt is becoming bigger and even more loans, more interest, it has become a vicious circle?

As it stands and if he continues without making a structural change (best and most obvious option to us all) or sells at a loss, unless by some miracle that we get promoted via the play offs at some point over the next 3 to 5 years, and the percentage odds of that are significantly low for any club even with significant investment (I'm looking at you Hull) are shockingly low. And then you are in another world of pain.

If he was my uncle and I was part of the family business, I would have a mega "straightener" with him and tell him to stop f@cking about, grow a pair get and someone in. And whilst he's at it, to stop tucking his football shirt into his ridiculous pants as he looks like a tw#t.

Thanks Grange for the prompt reply, he definitely needs to learn to dress, dresses like he runs the club

Thing is mate, he can sort all of his problems out in a single phone call. He's a shrewd operator and stubborn, but in the case of Cardiff City, his stubbornness is now his weakness.

He needs to take the sentiment out of it, see sense, swallow his pride, put personal differences to the side and see it purely as a cold, logical business transaction. Which is what it is.

And also stop wearing football tops with suits.

Replies:

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Reply:

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Annis, Jim,

Here is the breakdown from the lastest accounts:

1: Tormen (MD) - £27M @ 9% = £2.5M PA
2: "New Loan" (Undisclosed) - £19 @ 9% = £1.7M PA
4: VT - £64M @ Split, some non interest bearing, so assume a conservative of at @9% - £2.2M PA

TOTAL INTEREST = £6.4M PA

I take your point that this would impact on FFP, but the accounts clearly state that Tormen were paid £1,642,947 interest in the last accounts not £2.5m. The accounts also state the total repayment of interest was £2,000,050. There is also mention of payments to higher management of £542,000, which again would impact on FFP.

If your total had been around £2.5m- £3m you would have a credible argument.

I would also add that this would be the same for all other championship sides. They all carry debt and pay interest.

Annis, Jim,

Here is the breakdown from the lastest accounts:

1: Tormen (MD) - £27M @ 9% = £2.5M PA
2: "New Loan" (Undisclosed) - £19 @ 9% = £1.7M PA
4: VT - £64M @ Split, some non interest bearing, so assume a conservative of at @9% - £2.2M PA

TOTAL INTEREST = £6.4M PA

I take your point that this would impact on FFP, but the accounts clearly state that Tormen were paid £1,642,947 interest in the last accounts not £2.5m. The accounts also state the total repayment of interest was £2,000,050. There is also mention of payments to higher management of £542,000, which again would impact on FFP.

If your total had been around £2.5m- £3m you would have a credible argument.

I would also add that this would be the same for all other championship sides. They all carry debt and pay interest.

£3M, £6M, £10M, whatever and again with respect, I don't have time to nickel & dime about detail when it's the macro situation that is the prime concern, not the micro. The figures are still significant but your missing the point of what I've said. I'm not going to repeat myself so I'll quote from an earlier post who also misses the crux of the matter.

"With respect, your are missing the whole point, well at least what I've commented on anyway. No one is questioning that we are only functioning due to him personally funding the club via loans or his own capital.

All football clubs run at a loss. The question is by how much and is the owner able to service the debt and loans whist operating for growth. And in our case that growth will be completely determined by player budget.

Our specific problem is that the annual accounts summary statement specifies that there is concern about the owner being able or still willing to do that if identified risk scenarios happen and as to our ability to operate as a going concern.

And this also feeds into our old friend FFP, because our aggregate 3 year moving average losses due to our overall and ongoing position may mean that we now can't spend a reasonable budget, although we so have easements for next season which is great.

There is no question that VT can spend more of his families money to keep us going for quite a number of years. He may have to do that as it maybe difficult to access the loan market for an investor who is willing to lend money at an acceptable interest rate to a business that has so much debt as presents a risk. They may feel more comfortable investing it elsewhere because of that. I know I would as anything can happen in business - e.g. VT has lost half of his net worth wiped out in a very short time. And they will have read this and what the annual report statement says, that's a given.

So the exam questions remain:

1: How long will VT continue to fund the club?
2: How can VT continue to fund the club, loans, personal wealth?
3: By how much more will VT continue to fund the club before he reaches a decision that he is either unwilling or unable to do so as his overall liability is currently over 50% of his net worth?

Something has to give at some point. That's for sure.

So If you were in his shoes and given the above, what would you do and at what point would enough be enough to either sell at a loss or change the structure as your only logical option to reverse the rot and mount a serious challenge and plan to achieve sustainable PL status?

As that's the only way he's going to get his £250M (and growing) back. And every year he fails to do that, his overall liability or what he thinks he's owed, just gets bigger and the hole gets deeper".

Annis, Jim,

Here is the breakdown from the lastest accounts:

1: Tormen (MD) - £27M @ 9% = £2.5M PA
2: "New Loan" (Undisclosed) - £19 @ 9% = £1.7M PA
4: VT - £64M @ Split, some non interest bearing, so assume a conservative of at @9% - £2.2M PA

TOTAL INTEREST = £6.4M PA

I take your point that this would impact on FFP, but the accounts clearly state that Tormen were paid £1,642,947 interest in the last accounts not £2.5m. The accounts also state the total repayment of interest was £2,000,050. There is also mention of payments to higher management of £542,000, which again would impact on FFP.

If your total had been around £2.5m- £3m you would have a credible argument.

I would also add that this would be the same for all other championship sides. They all carry debt and pay interest.

So basically a load of bullshit , another inflated amount to try and make the club look bad , when will this nonsense stop ???

£3M, £6M, £10M, whatever and again with respect, I don't have time to nickel & dime about detail when it's the macro situation that is the prime concern, not the micro. The figures are still significant but your missing the point of what I've said. I'm not going to repeat myself so I'll quote from an earlier post who also misses the crux of the matter.

"With respect, your are missing the whole point, well at least what I've commented on anyway. No one is questioning that we are only functioning due to him personally funding the club via loans or his own capital.

All football clubs run at a loss. The question is by how much and is the owner able to service the debt and loans whist operating for growth. And in our case that growth will be completely determined by player budget.

Our specific problem is that the annual accounts summary statement specifies that there is concern about the owner being able or still willing to do that if identified risk scenarios happen and as to our ability to operate as a going concern.

And this also feeds into our old friend FFP, because our aggregate 3 year moving average losses due to our overall and ongoing position may mean that we now can't spend a reasonable budget, although we so have easements for next season which is great.

There is no question that VT can spend more of his families money to keep us going for quite a number of years. He may have to do that as it maybe difficult to access the loan market for an investor who is willing to lend money at an acceptable interest rate to a business that has so much debt as presents a risk. They may feel more comfortable investing it elsewhere because of that. I know I would as anything can happen in business - e.g. VT has lost half of his net worth wiped out in a very short time. And they will have read this and what the annual report statement says, that's a given.

So the exam questions remain:

1: How long will VT continue to fund the club?
2: How can VT continue to fund the club, loans, personal wealth?
3: By how much more will VT continue to fund the club before he reaches a decision that he is either unwilling or unable to do so as his overall liability is currently over 50% of his net worth?

Something has to give at some point. That's for sure.

So If you were in his shoes and given the above, what would you do and at what point would enough be enough to either sell at a loss or change the structure as your only logical option to reverse the rot and mount a serious challenge and plan to achieve sustainable PL status?

As that's the only way he's going to get his £250M (and growing) back. And every year he fails to do that, his overall liability or what he thinks he's owed, just gets bigger and the hole gets deeper".

Annis, Jim,

Here is the breakdown from the lastest accounts:

1: Tormen (MD) - £27M @ 9% = £2.5M PA
2: "New Loan" (Undisclosed) - £19 @ 9% = £1.7M PA
4: VT - £64M @ Split, some non interest bearing, so assume a conservative of at @9% - £2.2M PA

TOTAL INTEREST = £6.4M PA

I take your point that this would impact on FFP, but the accounts clearly state that Tormen were paid £1,642,947 interest in the last accounts not £2.5m. The accounts also state the total repayment of interest was £2,000,050. There is also mention of payments to higher management of £542,000, which again would impact on FFP.

If your total had been around £2.5m- £3m you would have a credible argument.

I would also add that this would be the same for all other championship sides. They all carry debt and pay interest.

£3M, £6M, £10M, whatever and again with respect, I don't have time to nickel & dime about detail when it's the macro situation that is the prime concern, not the micro. The figures are still significant but your missing the point of what I've said. I'm not going to repeat myself so I'll quote from an earlier post who also misses the crux of the matter.

"With respect, your are missing the whole point, well at least what I've commented on anyway. No one is questioning that we are only functioning due to him personally funding the club via loans or his own capital.

All football clubs run at a loss. The question is by how much and is the owner able to service the debt and loans whist operating for growth. And in our case that growth will be completely determined by player budget.

Our specific problem is that the annual accounts summary statement specifies that there is concern about the owner being able or still willing to do that if identified risk scenarios happen and as to our ability to operate as a going concern.

And this also feeds into our old friend FFP, because our aggregate 3 year moving average losses due to our overall and ongoing position may mean that we now can't spend a reasonable budget, although we so have easements for next season which is great.

There is no question that VT can spend more of his families money to keep us going for quite a number of years. He may have to do that as it maybe difficult to access the loan market for an investor who is willing to lend money at an acceptable interest rate to a business that has so much debt as presents a risk. They may feel more comfortable investing it elsewhere because of that. I know I would as anything can happen in business - e.g. VT has lost half of his net worth wiped out in a very short time. And they will have read this and what the annual report statement says, that's a given.

So the exam questions remain:

1: How long will VT continue to fund the club?
2: How can VT continue to fund the club, loans, personal wealth?
3: By how much more will VT continue to fund the club before he reaches a decision that he is either unwilling or unable to do so as his overall liability is currently over 50% of his net worth?

Something has to give at some point. That's for sure.

So If you were in his shoes and given the above, what would you do and at what point would enough be enough to either sell at a loss or change the structure as your only logical option to reverse the rot and mount a serious challenge and plan to achieve sustainable PL status?

As that's the only way he's going to get his £250M (and growing) back. And every year he fails to do that, his overall liability or what he thinks he's owed, just gets bigger and the hole gets deeper".

It makes a big difference 6 million is double the amount at least put the right amounts down, my biggest bug woth somecpoaters on this fourm in incorrect information to bash the club , I'm not even sure you wrote the original op and probably posted it for someone else.

Annis, Jim,

Here is the breakdown from the lastest accounts:

1: Tormen (MD) - £27M @ 9% = £2.5M PA
2: "New Loan" (Undisclosed) - £19 @ 9% = £1.7M PA
4: VT - £64M @ Split, some non interest bearing, so assume a conservative of at @9% - £2.2M PA

TOTAL INTEREST = £6.4M PA

I take your point that this would impact on FFP, but the accounts clearly state that Tormen were paid £1,642,947 interest in the last accounts not £2.5m. The accounts also state the total repayment of interest was £2,000,050. There is also mention of payments to higher management of £542,000, which again would impact on FFP.

If your total had been around £2.5m- £3m you would have a credible argument.

I would also add that this would be the same for all other championship sides. They all carry debt and pay interest.

£3M, £6M, £10M, whatever and again with respect, I don't have time to nickel & dime about detail when it's the macro situation that is the prime concern, not the micro. The figures are still significant but your missing the point of what I've said. I'm not going to repeat myself so I'll quote from an earlier post who also misses the crux of the matter.

"With respect, your are missing the whole point, well at least what I've commented on anyway. No one is questioning that we are only functioning due to him personally funding the club via loans or his own capital.

All football clubs run at a loss. The question is by how much and is the owner able to service the debt and loans whist operating for growth. And in our case that growth will be completely determined by player budget.

Our specific problem is that the annual accounts summary statement specifies that there is concern about the owner being able or still willing to do that if identified risk scenarios happen and as to our ability to operate as a going concern.

And this also feeds into our old friend FFP, because our aggregate 3 year moving average losses due to our overall and ongoing position may mean that we now can't spend a reasonable budget, although we so have easements for next season which is great.

There is no question that VT can spend more of his families money to keep us going for quite a number of years. He may have to do that as it maybe difficult to access the loan market for an investor who is willing to lend money at an acceptable interest rate to a business that has so much debt as presents a risk. They may feel more comfortable investing it elsewhere because of that. I know I would as anything can happen in business - e.g. VT has lost half of his net worth wiped out in a very short time. And they will have read this and what the annual report statement says, that's a given.

So the exam questions remain:

1: How long will VT continue to fund the club?
2: How can VT continue to fund the club, loans, personal wealth?
3: By how much more will VT continue to fund the club before he reaches a decision that he is either unwilling or unable to do so as his overall liability is currently over 50% of his net worth?

Something has to give at some point. That's for sure.

So If you were in his shoes and given the above, what would you do and at what point would enough be enough to either sell at a loss or change the structure as your only logical option to reverse the rot and mount a serious challenge and plan to achieve sustainable PL status?

As that's the only way he's going to get his £250M (and growing) back. And every year he fails to do that, his overall liability or what he thinks he's owed, just gets bigger and the hole gets deeper".

It makes a big difference 6 million is double the amount at least put the right amounts down, my biggest bug woth somecpoaters on this fourm in incorrect information to bash the club , I'm not even sure you wrote the original op and probably posted it for someone else.

Then wez when are you going to stop saying I'm either fake or not posting my own content?

It's funny I have the same feelings over the owner as the majority but because you don't like it you scream I'm fake or it isn't me who come up with the idea to post, talking about broken records....

9% interest on an unsecured loan to a football club seems cheap.

It's actually pretty reasonable if it's your own money that you maybe lending yourself. Just saying.

Would have thought that if the club could have obtained the unsecured funding elsewhere at cheaper rates they would have done so?

Fair play to the Fun Boy 3 - " It's not what you do but the way that you do it "

Annis, Jim,

Here is the breakdown from the lastest accounts:

1: Tormen (MD) - £27M @ 9% = £2.5M PA
2: "New Loan" (Undisclosed) - £19 @ 9% = £1.7M PA
4: VT - £64M @ Split, some non interest bearing, so assume a conservative of at @9% - £2.2M PA

TOTAL INTEREST = £6.4M PA

I take your point that this would impact on FFP, but the accounts clearly state that Tormen were paid £1,642,947 interest in the last accounts not £2.5m. The accounts also state the total repayment of interest was £2,000,050. There is also mention of payments to higher management of £542,000, which again would impact on FFP.

If your total had been around £2.5m- £3m you would have a credible argument.

I would also add that this would be the same for all other championship sides. They all carry debt and pay interest.

£3M, £6M, £10M, whatever and again with respect, I don't have time to nickel & dime about detail when it's the macro situation that is the prime concern, not the micro. The figures are still significant but your missing the point of what I've said. I'm not going to repeat myself so I'll quote from an earlier post who also misses the crux of the matter.

"With respect, your are missing the whole point, well at least what I've commented on anyway. No one is questioning that we are only functioning due to him personally funding the club via loans or his own capital.

All football clubs run at a loss. The question is by how much and is the owner able to service the debt and loans whist operating for growth. And in our case that growth will be completely determined by player budget.

Our specific problem is that the annual accounts summary statement specifies that there is concern about the owner being able or still willing to do that if identified risk scenarios happen and as to our ability to operate as a going concern.

And this also feeds into our old friend FFP, because our aggregate 3 year moving average losses due to our overall and ongoing position may mean that we now can't spend a reasonable budget, although we so have easements for next season which is great.

There is no question that VT can spend more of his families money to keep us going for quite a number of years. He may have to do that as it maybe difficult to access the loan market for an investor who is willing to lend money at an acceptable interest rate to a business that has so much debt as presents a risk. They may feel more comfortable investing it elsewhere because of that. I know I would as anything can happen in business - e.g. VT has lost half of his net worth wiped out in a very short time. And they will have read this and what the annual report statement says, that's a given.

So the exam questions remain:

1: How long will VT continue to fund the club?
2: How can VT continue to fund the club, loans, personal wealth?
3: By how much more will VT continue to fund the club before he reaches a decision that he is either unwilling or unable to do so as his overall liability is currently over 50% of his net worth?

Something has to give at some point. That's for sure.

So If you were in his shoes and given the above, what would you do and at what point would enough be enough to either sell at a loss or change the structure as your only logical option to reverse the rot and mount a serious challenge and plan to achieve sustainable PL status?

As that's the only way he's going to get his £250M (and growing) back. And every year he fails to do that, his overall liability or what he thinks he's owed, just gets bigger and the hole gets deeper".

It makes a big difference 6 million is double the amount at least put the right amounts down, my biggest bug woth somecpoaters on this fourm in incorrect information to bash the club , I'm not even sure you wrote the original op and probably posted it for someone else.

Then wez when are you going to stop saying I'm either fake or not posting my own content?

It's funny I have the same feelings over the owner as the majority but because you don't like it you scream I'm fake or it isn't me who come up with the idea to post, talking about broken records....

Kyle,


Wez, 1,000% knows your not fake, I showed him you on FB when he was over here.

The truth is there is NO Club Bashing at all.

It’s Hierarchy Bashing for how badly they’ve run OUR CLUB for 15 years and the bullshit and lies.
The way they treat the fans etc.

Plus the Debt is higher and not going down after years of Bullshit.

Annis, I think this is down to not all of us being business minded and see figures on here but see different figures on accounts ( when they get posted ), I appreciate GrangeEndStar putting it in layman's terms but agree with Wez that over the last few months especially it looks like certain posters are just plucking figures from thin air.
Football business is in £££££m so a figure of 3m compared to say 6m might mean nowt to a club but means he'll of a lot to us mere mortals lol.
We all know we're in crap Street again but let's have facts please so at least us fans who only get info from here can see it in reality.

Annis, I think this is down to not all of us being business minded and see figures on here but see different figures on accounts ( when they get posted ), I appreciate GrangeEndStar putting it in layman's terms but agree with Wez that over the last few months especially it looks like certain posters are just plucking figures from thin air.
Football business is in £££££m so a figure of 3m compared to say 6m might mean nowt to a club but means he'll of a lot to us mere mortals lol.
We all know we're in crap Street again but let's have facts please so at least us fans who only get info from here can see it in reality.

I always put facts out Jules,

I always stand by them, I appreciate as well how Grangendstar has tried to explain how badly run our club is and it’s Sadly True.

His figures are virtually spot on.

Sadly this does not getaway from the fact that our club is being run badly.


The next accounts will without a doubt show how much interest we are paying on monies we are borrowing Over £6mill interest and yet we were told we don’t borrow and we don’t get charged anything and there are No worries as it’s all Tans money.




This proves his figures are accurate and it's what we will be paying in the current accounting year for the new season.
£6,616,590 in interest:

Plus there's another £2M @9% loan that everyone else has missed, highlighted in yellow.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

FAO

WEZ / NINIAN CALLED aka K Morgan / OohahhPaulMillar:




This proves Grangendstars figures are accurate and it's what we will be paying in the current accounting year for the new season.
£6,616,590 in interest:

Plus there's another £2M @9% loan that everyone else has missed, highlighted in yellow.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

It’s Unbelievable that certain nit pickers try to twist the facts / evidence of the £6.6M we are liable for this season in interest alone plus Dalmans & Choo’s Wages.

Finally just admit when your wrong and accept Tans Regime are running our club to suit them and charging Our Club big interest.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

I'm waiting for wez now to say it's fabricated? There it is in black and white is that enough for you?

If tan runs out of money any time soon we are fucked what happens when he can't "write" off the debt ?

We might be up there with one of the worse run clubs around.

Let's not forget we are in the upper bracket of clubs in terms of size etc, I can accept a bit of debt when we are trying to make moves, but we aren't we are hoping to finish mid table season after season it's horrific.

If this is some people idea of a good owner then man we are screwed if a bad owner.

It’s Unbelievable that certain nit pickers try to twist the facts / evidence of the £6.6M we are liable for this season in interest alone plus Dalmans & Choo’s Wages.

Finally just admit when your wrong and accept Tans Regime are running our club to suit them and charging Our Club big interest.

I should have been more detailed yesterday TBH Annis but I'm flat out at the moment. I won't repost the screenshots as evidence as you've already done it but here are the calcs based on what's clearly reported in there and available for all to see on Companies House:

EXISTING & NEW LOANS FOR THIS SEASON:
1: VT - £36,447,000 @ 7% = £2,551,290
2: Torman £26,300,000 @ 9% = £2,367,000
3: "New Loan" 18,870,000 @ 9% = £1,698,300
TOTAL: £6,616,590 PA

OTHER LISTED INTEREST BEARING LOANS:
4: Director of £Nil £2,000,000 @ 9% = £180,000 PA

So the total could be as high as £6,796,590 PA

The last reported accounts for 2022/23 only shows circa £2M in interest paid out on loans so I presume the lenders have agreed to defer the rest of the interest owed to them for some reason (FFP etc?).What this means in effect is that the deferred interest payments could be added to their existing loans making them even bigger which will then attract the appropriate interest rate.

I hope that finally clarifies things for Wez and the other two.

It’s Unbelievable that certain nit pickers try to twist the facts / evidence of the £6.6M we are liable for this season in interest alone plus Dalmans & Choo’s Wages.

Finally just admit when your wrong and accept Tans Regime are running our club to suit them and charging Our Club big interest.

I should have been more detailed yesterday TBH Annis but I'm flat out at the moment. I won't repost the screenshots as evidence as you've already done it but here are the calcs based on what's clearly reported in there and available for all to see on Companies House:

EXISTING & NEW LOANS FOR THIS SEASON:
1: VT - £36,447,000 @ 7% = £2,551,290
2: Torman £26,300,000 @ 9% = £2,367,000
3: "New Loan" 18,870,000 @ 9% = £1,698,300
TOTAL: £6,616,590 PA

OTHER LISTED INTEREST BEARING LOANS:
4: Director of £Nil £2,000,000 @ 9% = £180,000 PA

So the total could be as high as £6,796,590 PA

The last reported accounts for 2022/23 only shows circa £2M in interest paid out on loans so I presume the lenders have agreed to defer the rest of the interest owed to them for some reason (FFP etc?).What this means in effect is that the deferred interest payments could be added to their existing loans making them even bigger which will then attract the appropriate interest rate.

I hope that finally clarifies things for Wez and the other two.

Paul,

Thank you for clearing all this up.

WOW: Over £6.6 Mill in interest going out of Our Club, WOW, plus Massive Wages for less than part-time work.


I hope instead of them trying to twist it anymore, they just admit they were wrong and we are being well truly taken for fools and if as you say they add last seasons interest on we are fucked.

Tan / Dalman and Morgan keep hiding behind the FFP.

We should not be paying any interest.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Reply:

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.