Actual discussion on red tops selling in Asia

We both agree that City cannot contunue trading the way it is you are correct.

However to counter that problem you decrease expenditure, not increase it.

As for marketing in Asia, you dont have to be an expert. Liverpool are one of the biggest clubs in the world especially in Asia and make £3.5 million per year from Asian shirt sales (350,000 sales at 25% margin ). Im sure you understand we arent even going to be a quarter as big as that, not eve a tenth, but even if we are twice as big as Liverpool in Asia (which is laughable in the extreme but im just doing it to show my point) we would make £7 million on shirt sales and still be losing £13 million per year from our projected £20 million losses with the added wages from new players added to our current losses.

All debts will be gone with the takeover but the problems we face today will remain and be even worse regardless of Tans intentions. We will lose £20 million a year and be back in £80 million od debt in 4 years time whether we are in the Champ or Prem, it makes no difference.

THE ONLY way to save the club is to cut expenditure and build slowly. simple as that.

We both agree that City cannot contunue trading the way it is you are correct.

However to counter that problem you decrease expenditure, not increase it.

As for marketing in Asia, you dont have to be an expert. Liverpool are one of the biggest clubs in the world especially in Asia and make £3.5 million per year from Asian shirt sales (350,000 sales at 25% margin ). Im sure you understand we arent even going to be a quarter as big as that, not eve a tenth, but even if we are twice as big as Liverpool in Asia (which is laughable in the extreme but im just doing it to show my point) we would make £7 million on shirt sales and still be losing £13 million per year from our projected £20 million losses with the added wages from new players added to our current losses.

All debts will be gone with the takeover but the problems we face today will remain and be even worse regardless of Tans intentions. We will lose £20 million a year and be back in £80 million od debt in 4 years time whether we are in the Champ or Prem, it makes no difference.

THE ONLY way to save the club is to cut expenditure and build slowly. simple as that.

yes in ideal world but how do you cut expenditure to accomadate 70ml debt?? love to know how can do it especially as time frame in place over langstone debt! plus only way is to cut wage bill which in reality means inferior players which in turn would mean risk relegation which in turn means lower crowds which means lower income and so forth admin is only route if vt doesnt invest and maybe liquidation as no assets to sell of note is this note true?? yes will build slowly but what would be left to build???
remember no alternative if he goes its at least admin what would you prefer??? dont think someone is going to take us over do you??

We both agree that City cannot contunue trading the way it is you are correct.

However to counter that problem you decrease expenditure, not increase it.

As for marketing in Asia, you dont have to be an expert. Liverpool are one of the biggest clubs in the world especially in Asia and make £3.5 million per year from Asian shirt sales (350,000 sales at 25% margin ). Im sure you understand we arent even going to be a quarter as big as that, not eve a tenth, but even if we are twice as big as Liverpool in Asia (which is laughable in the extreme but im just doing it to show my point) we would make £7 million on shirt sales and still be losing £13 million per year from our projected £20 million losses with the added wages from new players added to our current losses.

All debts will be gone with the takeover but the problems we face today will remain and be even worse regardless of Tans intentions. We will lose £20 million a year and be back in £80 million od debt in 4 years time whether we are in the Champ or Prem, it makes no difference.

THE ONLY way to save the club is to cut expenditure and build slowly. simple as that.

yes in ideal world but how do you cut expenditure to accomadate 70ml debt?? love to know how can do it especially as time frame in place over langstone debt! plus only way is to cut wage bill which in reality means inferior players which in turn would mean risk relegation which in turn means lower crowds which means lower income and so forth admin is only route if vt doesnt invest and maybe liquidation as no assets to sell of note is this note true?? yes will build slowly but what would be left to build???

Ive already outlined what we have to do. We are in £70 millon of debt because we simple spend more than we make, yet some want to continue doing this but at a higher rate. its bizzare, I can only put it down to wanting the chance to see Rooney more than City surviving.

First of all we must trade at break even, this involves restructuring the wages of the players and getting the big earners off the books. The transfer fees we would get for the players can come straight off the money owed. Because we will be operating at break even, any extra income can go toward the debts. Stadium naming, extra sponsorships, transfer fees for young players breaking through like Mason, cup runs. Then in 3-4 seasons time it would be drastically reduced to a managable level in terms of monthly repayments.

We also have the season ticket money every year which at the moment under the current plan is spent the season before leaving us with bare minimum gate reciepts. As we would be operating at break even we would no longer need to do this and 16,000 ST's at £400 each is £6.4 million per year which can also go toward the debt.

This is an option that makes us secure and self sufficient but it wont give us instant success which is why the fans and board dont do it - we honestly deserve everything we get. We are gambling addicts with a penchent for flirting with the self destruct button, we dont want to be rehabilitated - we want that buzz.

We both agree that City cannot contunue trading the way it is you are correct.

However to counter that problem you decrease expenditure, not increase it.

As for marketing in Asia, you dont have to be an expert. Liverpool are one of the biggest clubs in the world especially in Asia and make £3.5 million per year from Asian shirt sales (350,000 sales at 25% margin ). Im sure you understand we arent even going to be a quarter as big as that, not eve a tenth, but even if we are twice as big as Liverpool in Asia (which is laughable in the extreme but im just doing it to show my point) we would make £7 million on shirt sales and still be losing £13 million per year from our projected £20 million losses with the added wages from new players added to our current losses.

All debts will be gone with the takeover but the problems we face today will remain and be even worse regardless of Tans intentions. We will lose £20 million a year and be back in £80 million od debt in 4 years time whether we are in the Champ or Prem, it makes no difference.

THE ONLY way to save the club is to cut expenditure and build slowly. simple as that.

yes in ideal world but how do you cut expenditure to accomadate 70ml debt?? love to know how can do it especially as time frame in place over langstone debt! plus only way is to cut wage bill which in reality means inferior players which in turn would mean risk relegation which in turn means lower crowds which means lower income and so forth admin is only route if vt doesnt invest and maybe liquidation as no assets to sell of note is this note true?? yes will build slowly but what would be left to build???

Ive already outlined what we have to do. We are in £70 millon of debt because we simple spend more than we make, yet some want to continue doing this but at a higher rate. its bizzare, I can only put it down to wanting the chance to see Rooney more than City surviving.

First of all we must trade at break even, this involves restructuring the wages of the players and getting the big earners off the books. The transfer fees we would get for the players can come straight off the money owed. Because we will be operating at break even, any extra income can go toward the debts. Stadium naming, extra sponsorships, transfer fees for young players breaking through like Mason, cup runs. Then in 3-4 seasons time it would be drastically reduced to a managable level in terms of monthly repayments.

We also have the season ticket money every year which at the moment under the current plan is spent the season before leaving us with bare minimum gate reciepts. As we would be operating at break even we would no longer need to do this and 16,000 ST's at £400 each is £6.4 million per year which can also go toward the debt.

This is an option that makes us secure and self sufficient but it wont give us instant success which is why the fans and board dont do it - we honestly deserve everything we get. We are gambling addicts with a penchent for flirting with the self destruct button, we dont want to be rehabilitated - we want that buzz.

all well and good but we are loseing 1.5ml month sell players ok 10 mil if lucky need to replace them say 2 ml inc wages
season tickets so 8 ml for debt so pay 8ml to debt 60ml debt left still doesnt go anywhere near paying off debt cant break even as debt needs servicing doesnt it? and langstone needs to be paid by 2015 aprox 25ml. if not sooner! sorry nowhere near 16k st holders with crap squad so income not there whilst agree up to apoint sorrry you plan is not viable as dont have income to service debt!!! simple maths only salution is admin then start again is that what you want??

Your clearly not understanding me or the situation. Let me put it another way.

1) Malaysian business plan. Debt gets removed but all comes back in 4 season time regardless of success and continues at a rate of £15 - £20 million a year.... only one outcome, liquidation.

2) Cut expenditure to get to break even level or as near as we can. Give ALL extra revenue to Langston. £10-£12 million transfer fees and no we dont replace them players commanding transfer fees, we work in the free transfer market like Swansea did. £6.4 million season ticket money for the next 2 years. Langston gone. Do the same with what we owe Tan. 4-5 years time we are debt free and can move forward spending what we earn.

3) Go into administration now although it may risk liquidation.

these are the ONLY 3 options we have. There is only 1 clear option yet only number 1 is being supported regardless that it results in our demise because with it comes a chance (and thats all it is) that before our impending demise, we may get a climpse of some big teams.

Your clearly not understanding me or the situation. Let me put it another way.

1) Malaysian business plan. Debt gets removed but all comes back in 4 season time regardless of success and continues at a rate of £15 - £20 million a year.... only one outcome, liquidation.

2) Cut expenditure to get to break even level or as near as we can. Give ALL extra revenue to Langston. £10-£12 million transfer fees and no we dont replace them players commanding transfer fees, we work in the free transfer market like Swansea did. £6.4 million season ticket money for the next 2 years. Langston gone. Do the same with what we owe Tan. 4-5 years time we are debt free and can move forward spending what we earn.

3) Go into administration now although it may risk liquidation.

these are the ONLY 3 options we have. There is only 1 clear option yet only number 1 is being supported regardless that it results in our demise because with it comes a chance (and thats all it is) that before our impending demise, we may get a climpse of some big teams.

debt is not citys if vt does what he says! its his debt! that we have established on here! so liquidation in future will mean vt losing all the money not city!! as its his debt in way of equity holdings again established on here! yes agree about live within incme but you base it on 16k st holders + selling players but that is speculation as to amount! we wont have that many also no decent players no champ team, lower crowds yes great in pheory but that all it is! ,so realistically all we have is option 1 or 3
ps langstone not only creditor vt is owed 40ml pmg x amount cannot have enough income to service debts and run club
pps langstone at present is not being paid either so 1.5ml month is not true losses

Last edited by pembroke allan on Sat May 12, 2012 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, the initial £100 million used to pay off Langston and the waste of extending the ground and new training area will be converted into equity.

The monthly loss will be Cardiff City's to bare.

No, the initial £100 million used to pay of Langston and the waste of exteding the ground and new training area will be converted into equity.

The monthly loss will be Cardiff City's to bare.

yes true only if vt does what he says! unless he does we owe creditors 70ml well established amount owed by us to vt sam ect off that 100ml 30 odd ml is vts so in fact he intends to put in further 70ml, like said unless he takes over with this plan we are not able to service the debts do not have enough income however we we try to balance books cutting wage bill ect ect is nowhere near enough of a saving to make payments no vt admin is only option unless get buyer???? & pigs will fly

No, the initial £100 million used to pay of Langston and the waste of exteding the ground and new training area will be converted into equity.

The monthly loss will be Cardiff City's to bare.

yes true only if vt does what he says! unless he does we owe creditors 70ml well established amount owed by us to vt sam ect off that 100ml 30 odd ml is vts so in fact he intends to put in further 70ml, like said unless he takes over with this plan we are not able to service the debts do not have enough income however we we try to balance books cutting wage bill ect ect is nowhere near enough of a saving to make payments no vt admin is only option unless get buyer???? & pigs will fly

It isnt Sams wish to see us go under, he just wants his money, which is fair enough.

If its a case of accepting £5-7 million a year then thats what he will do. We can pay half of it this season in player sales alone.

we CAN balance the books, or near enough. there is no doubt, but we wont be challenging for promotion. there is a siple way out and one in which the club survives, but everyone is blinding themselves to it because the 4 years before we go bust will be exciting. nder who they will support after that when we are gone though?

No, the initial £100 million used to pay of Langston and the waste of exteding the ground and new training area will be converted into equity.

The monthly loss will be Cardiff City's to bare.

yes true only if vt does what he says! unless he does we owe creditors 70ml well established amount owed by us to vt sam ect off that 100ml 30 odd ml is vts so in fact he intends to put in further 70ml, like said unless he takes over with this plan we are not able to service the debts do not have enough income however we we try to balance books cutting wage bill ect ect is nowhere near enough of a saving to make payments no vt admin is only option unless get buyer???? & pigs will fly

It isnt Sams wish to see us go under, he just wants his money, which is fair enough.

If its a case of accepting £5-7 million a year then thats what he will do. We can pay half of it this season in player sales alone.

we CAN balance the books, or near enough. there is no doubt, but we wont be challenging for promotion. there is a siple way out and one in which the club survives, but everyone is blinding themselves to it because the 4 years before we go bust will be exciting. nder who they will support after that when we are gone though?

but its not only sam we owe money to is it? what about the others sorry still dont see how you can think we have enough money comeing in even after stripping team with lesser players and assuming we stay in champ its all assuptions and its not 4yrs is it what if vt doesnt want to wait for money?? then what? ok just for arguement sake we do have enough income what if pmg or vt dont want settle for monthly payouts?? then what??
also pay off half now with cash from players what about next season?? cannot sustain it for the amount time you specify!!

No, the initial £100 million used to pay of Langston and the waste of exteding the ground and new training area will be converted into equity.

The monthly loss will be Cardiff City's to bare.

yes true only if vt does what he says! unless he does we owe creditors 70ml well established amount owed by us to vt sam ect off that 100ml 30 odd ml is vts so in fact he intends to put in further 70ml, like said unless he takes over with this plan we are not able to service the debts do not have enough income however we we try to balance books cutting wage bill ect ect is nowhere near enough of a saving to make payments no vt admin is only option unless get buyer???? & pigs will fly

It isnt Sams wish to see us go under, he just wants his money, which is fair enough.

If its a case of accepting £5-7 million a year then thats what he will do. We can pay half of it this season in player sales alone.

we CAN balance the books, or near enough. there is no doubt, but we wont be challenging for promotion. there is a siple way out and one in which the club survives, but everyone is blinding themselves to it because the 4 years before we go bust will be exciting. nder who they will support after that when we are gone though?

but its not only sam we owe money to is it? what about the others sorry still dont see how you can think we have enough money comeing in even after stripping team with lesser players and assuming we stay in champ its all assuptions and its not 4yrs is it what if vt doesnt want to wait for money?? then what? ok just for arguement sake we do have enough income what if pmg or vt dont want settle for monthly payouts?? then what??
also pay off half now with cash from players what about next season?? cannot sustain it for the amount time you specify!!

Of course they wont, its either accept what we can afford or we go under and they get next to nothing in terms of what we owe them. Its standard pracitice, hence why football is in such a state but there are hardly any clubs that cease to exist.

We have been idiots over the years paying millions for players and its understandable how some think to get a good oplayer you have to pay through the nose. Lets take the Jacks promotion winning team for example...

De Vries - free
Rangel - 30k
Williams - 400k
Monk - free
Tate - free

Dyer - 400k
Sinclair - 500k
Britton - free
Pratley - 100k
Allen - free

Borini - loan

£1.3 million total starting 11 cost and one of the lowest wage budgets,

If we sold Whitts, Miller, Earnie, Mason, Hudson - I thik we would get around £14 million from them, If we used £2 mill to spend on the squad..... leaving £12 million owed to Sam. any extra revenue goes to the debt. He can have the season ticket money for the next 2 seasons meaning he is paid off.

Then we have to agree with Tan, again he wants his money - he doesnt want us to go under meaning he gets nothing. We can give him the season ticket money every year plus any player sales from successful purchases, unexpected revenue like cup runs, play-offs, say £10 million a year all together. 5 years and hes paid off.

7 years time we are self sufficient and can start spending the £6.4 million season ticket money on improving the team.

ANY other option results in our liquidation agree? so there is no other option is there?

We both agree that City cannot contunue trading the way it is you are correct.

However to counter that problem you decrease expenditure, not increase it.

As for marketing in Asia, you dont have to be an expert. Liverpool are one of the biggest clubs in the world especially in Asia and make £3.5 million per year from Asian shirt sales (350,000 sales at 25% margin ). Im sure you understand we arent even going to be a quarter as big as that, not eve a tenth, but even if we are twice as big as Liverpool in Asia (which is laughable in the extreme but im just doing it to show my point) we would make £7 million on shirt sales and still be losing £13 million per year from our projected £20 million losses with the added wages from new players added to our current losses.

All debts will be gone with the takeover but the problems we face today will remain and be even worse regardless of Tans intentions. We will lose £20 million a year and be back in £80 million od debt in 4 years time whether we are in the Champ or Prem, it makes no difference.

THE ONLY way to save the club is to cut expenditure and build slowly. simple as that.

yes in ideal world but how do you cut expenditure to accomadate 70ml debt?? love to know how can do it especially as time frame in place over langstone debt! plus only way is to cut wage bill which in reality means inferior players which in turn would mean risk relegation which in turn means lower crowds which means lower income and so forth admin is only route if vt doesnt invest and maybe liquidation as no assets to sell of note is this note true?? yes will build slowly but what would be left to build???

Ive already outlined what we have to do. We are in £70 millon of debt because we simple spend more than we make, yet some want to continue doing this but at a higher rate. its bizzare, I can only put it down to wanting the chance to see Rooney more than City surviving.

First of all we must trade at break even, this involves restructuring the wages of the players and getting the big earners off the books. The transfer fees we would get for the players can come straight off the money owed. Because we will be operating at break even, any extra income can go toward the debts. Stadium naming, extra sponsorships, transfer fees for young players breaking through like Mason, cup runs. Then in 3-4 seasons time it would be drastically reduced to a managable level in terms of monthly repayments.

We also have the season ticket money every year which at the moment under the current plan is spent the season before leaving us with bare minimum gate reciepts. As we would be operating at break even we would no longer need to do this and 16,000 ST's at £400 each is £6.4 million per year which can also go toward the debt.

This is an option that makes us secure and self sufficient but it wont give us instant success which is why the fans and board dont do it - we honestly deserve everything we get. We are gambling addicts with a penchent for flirting with the self destruct button, we dont want to be rehabilitated - we want that buzz.

A fine plan and a lesson in how to frugally operate a football club, but what you are forgetting is that without our current owners pumping their own money into our club, it has been stated numerous times that we have only a few weeks to survive. If all of your cost cutting measures could be magically implemented overnight, it might work. But the fact is what you propose takes time. Time we don't have. If the plan is sincere (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) VT offers an option where our debts are eliminated whilst keeping the club afloat on a month to month basis!

What's more, is that if we want to do this investment, we had better get going before the financial fair play penalties come into play. I'm all for not living beyond our means, but to try and turn this thing around overnight is an impossibility if we go the frugal route. I understand your concerns of going bust 4 years from now (although I believe they are unfounded seeing how our owners have demonstrated that they are willing to take on the club's debt personally). Sure, things can turn sour quickly and we could have issues 4 years from now and new debts, but none of that is guaranteed. It's all worst case scenario guess work on your part making the assumption that our owners will stop backing us and assuming the rebranding will be an utter failure. I haven't seen anywhere that TG and VT will be funding the club solely through Asian shirt sales. Anybody can see that isn't possible, certainly our owners know that we aren't going to be bigger than Manure or Liverpool overnight. They aren't idiots and they have more planned for income streams aside from shirt sales.

It seems there are two camps on this issue:

1. Frugal route as you have so thoughtfully outlined for us, and hope stay alive long enough to avoid liquidation.
2. Route of change where our debts will be eliminated and we will have immediate stability.

In either case, the long term future of the club will remain uncertain, but in option 2, we at least have the guarantee of an immediate future.

I respect your opinion, but I'm not sure what you are suggesting is plausible in the short or long term given the current state of the club.

You are missing the point. We wont have immediate stability, yes our current standing debts will be wiped out but we are still heading for impending doom at an alarming rate - NO MATTER WHAT SUCCESS WE HAVE OR WHAT LEAGUE WE ARE IN - thats an important point you need to realsie.

Our club will be going into £2 million a debt a month, £24 million a year, £120 million in 5 years - there is only one outcome and thats liquidation.

By the way fair play rules come in to play next year, its just we wont be punished until 3 season time.

I understand perfectly well what you are saying. Our club operates with a monthly negative cash flow. This is currently being addressed by our owners bank rolling us to the tune of 1.2 million per month. As a long term strategy, negative cash flows are obviously bad and could lead to future liquidation. What you have failed to address for me is the simple fact of timing. If our investors discontinue bank rolling the club how do we survive long enough to implement your proposed cost cutting measures while remaining a solvent business entity?

You are choosing the gun at your head, I am choosing the gun down the street.

I understand perfectly well what you are saying. Our club operates with a monthly negative cash flow. This is currently being addressed by our owners bank rolling us to the tune of 1.2 million per month. As a long term strategy, negative cash flows are obviously bad and could lead to future liquidation. What you have failed to address for me is the simple fact of timing. If our investors discontinue bank rolling the club how do we survive long enough to implement your proposed cost cutting measures while remaining a solvent business entity?

You are choosing the gun at your head, I am choosing the gun down the street.

Player sales will generate a lump sum, maybe even as much as 50% of the debt owed to Sam with the rest being set as a payment plan over the course of say 3 years. Sam wants his money, he isnt stupid and would accept that.

Then we go down the route of running at break even, its the off season now and a perfect time to renegotiate contracts etc.

Then we have season ticket money and any extra revenue above our break even state we can split amongst Tan and Sam. 6- 7 years later - debt free and a club we can have for our grandkids and can build sensibly with.

Stop arguing with a Jack.

Evidence?

Those claimed figures for shirt sales are similar to those on a thread on Planet Jerks recently.

The masturbation over the cost of Jacks players.

First ever post was in Malaysian. Translated, there was an apology for having poor English.

Just look how well he's managed to not only gain better English language skills than most on here, but also posts in a decidedly Westernised style. Indeed, especially since he apologises for his poor English 11th May, uses perfect English 12th May.

I understand perfectly well what you are saying. Our club operates with a monthly negative cash flow. This is currently being addressed by our owners bank rolling us to the tune of 1.2 million per month. As a long term strategy, negative cash flows are obviously bad and could lead to future liquidation. What you have failed to address for me is the simple fact of timing. If our investors discontinue bank rolling the club how do we survive long enough to implement your proposed cost cutting measures while remaining a solvent business entity?

You are choosing the gun at your head, I am choosing the gun down the street.

Player sales will generate a lump sum, maybe even as much as 50% of the debt owed to Sam with the rest being set as a payment plan over the course of say 3 years. Sam wants his money, he isnt stupid and would accept that.

Then we go down the route of running at break even, its the off season now and a perfect time to renegotiate contracts etc.

Then we have season ticket money and any extra revenue above our break even s we can split amongst Tan and Sam. 6- 7 years later - debt free and a club we can have for our grandkids and can build sensibly with.

So here's the question. Malaysians leave tomorrow. How long can we last?

Stop arguing with a Jack.

Evidence?

Those claimed figures for shirt sales are similar to those on a thread on Planet Jerks recently.

The masturbation over the cost of Jacks players.

First ever post was in Malaysian. Translated, there was an apology for having poor English.

Just look how well he's managed to not only gain better English language skills than most on here, but also posts in a decidedly Westernised style. Indeed, especially since he apologises for his poor English 11th May, uses perfect English 12th May.

1) they are probably similsr because its a fact
2) again its not masterbation, they are facts and proving you dont have to spend to be good.
3) it was a joke, although im against the Malaysian plans so you can be forgiven for misunderstanding
4) thanks.

Stop arguing with a Jack.

Evidence?

Those claimed figures for shirt sales are similar to those on a thread on Planet Jerks recently.

The masturbation over the cost of Jacks players.

First ever post was in Malaysian. Translated, there was an apology for having poor English.

Just look how well he's managed to not only gain better English language skills than most on here, but also posts in a decidedly Westernised style. Indeed, especially since he apologises for his poor English 11th May, uses perfect English 12th May.

1) they are probably similsr because its a fact
2) again its not masterbation, they are facts and proving you dont have to spend to be good.
3) it was a joke, although im against the Malaysian plans so you can be forgiven for misunderstanding
4) thanks.

Nope. You've been busted big time, fella. If you'd said something like you'd used Google Translate that would be plausible but a lie as Google Translations between Malaysian and English aren't great, mostly literal translations of words without context.

So, if you're prepared to lie in your claim of having poor English perhaps you can enlighten everybody as to why they should take any of your claims seriously, hmm?

I understand perfectly well what you are saying. Our club operates with a monthly negative cash flow. This is currently being addressed by our owners bank rolling us to the tune of 1.2 million per month. As a long term strategy, negative cash flows are obviously bad and could lead to future liquidation. What you have failed to address for me is the simple fact of timing. If our investors discontinue bank rolling the club how do we survive long enough to implement your proposed cost cutting measures while remaining a solvent business entity?

You are choosing the gun at your head, I am choosing the gun down the street.

Player sales will generate a lump sum, maybe even as much as 50% of the debt owed to Sam with the rest being set as a payment plan over the course of say 3 years. Sam wants his money, he isnt stupid and would accept that.

Then we go down the route of running at break even, its the off season now and a perfect time to renegotiate contracts etc.

Then we have season ticket money and any extra revenue above our break even s we can split amongst Tan and Sam. 6- 7 years later - debt free and a club we can have for our grandkids and can build sensibly with.

So here's the question. Malaysians leave tomorrow. How long can we last?

Forever. why not.

If we can sell Mason, Earnie, Whitts, Hudson and Miller then use maybe a million for the squad and pay £6million each to Langston and Tan enabling us to do a deal for a payment plan for future payments.

We can put a realistic price on the stadium naming rights which can go straight to Langston, and as we will be operating at break even with no ridiculous signings we will also have the luxury of having our season tiket money to divvy up between the two.

Oh, and thanks for confirming you're a liar.

You claim you're against "the malaysians" plans.

Since you're allegedly Malaysian wouldn't you have said you were against Tan's plans? You know, Tan the guy you claimed to be an ex business partner of.

Or maybe you were using Google translate after all.

Face it kid, you've been busted by a greater intellect. It happens.

Stop arguing with a Jack.

Evidence?

Those claimed figures for shirt sales are similar to those on a thread on Planet Jerks recently.

The masturbation over the cost of Jacks players.

First ever post was in Malaysian. Translated, there was an apology for having poor English.

Just look how well he's managed to not only gain better English language skills than most on here, but also posts in a decidedly Westernised style. Indeed, especially since he apologises for his poor English 11th May, uses perfect English 12th May.

1) they are probably similsr because its a fact
2) again its not masterbation, they are facts and proving you dont have to spend to be good.
3) it was a joke, although im against the Malaysian plans so you can be forgiven for misunderstanding
4) thanks.

Nope. You've been busted big time, fella. If you'd said something like you'd used Google Translate that would be plausible but a lie as Google Translations between Malaysian and English aren't great, mostly literal translations of words without context.

So, if you're prepared to lie in your claim of having poor English perhaps you can enlighten everybody as to why they should take any of your claims seriously, hmm?

I dont understand what you are getting at regarding google translate etc youve lost me on that one.

But as for my claims - they arent claims, they are facts. which bit are yu deeming as a claim rather than a fact?

Oh, and thanks for confirming you're a liar.

You claim you're against "the malaysians" plans.

Since you're allegedly Malaysian wouldn't you have said you were against Tan's plans? You know, Tan the guy you claimed to be an ex business partner of.

Or maybe you were using Google translate after all.

Face it kid, you've been busted by a greater intellect. It happens.

What are you wittering on about?

Which part of it was a joke are you struggling with.

Whether im Malaysian, czech, german, welsh or gambian it doesnt really make a difference. Whether im a pathological liar or not - it still doesnt make a difference.

im stating facts not opinion.

I understand perfectly well what you are saying. Our club operates with a monthly negative cash flow. This is currently being addressed by our owners bank rolling us to the tune of 1.2 million per month. As a long term strategy, negative cash flows are obviously bad and could lead to future liquidation. What you have failed to address for me is the simple fact of timing. If our investors discontinue bank rolling the club how do we survive long enough to implement your proposed cost cutting measures while remaining a solvent business entity?

You are choosing the gun at your head, I am choosing the gun down the street.

Player sales will generate a lump sum, maybe even as much as 50% of the debt owed to Sam with the rest being set as a payment plan over the course of say 3 years. Sam wants his money, he isnt stupid and would accept that.

Then we go down the route of running at break even, its the off season now and a perfect time to renegotiate contracts etc.

Then we have season ticket money and any extra revenue above our break even s we can split amongst Tan and Sam. 6- 7 years later - debt free and a club we can have for our grandkids and can build sensibly with.

So here's the question. Malaysians leave tomorrow. How long can we last?

Forever. why not.

If we can sell Mason, Earnie, Whitts, Hudson and Miller then use maybe a million for the squad and pay £6million each to Langston and Tan enabling us to do a deal for a payment plan for future payments.

We can put a realistic price on the stadium naming rights which can go straight to Langston, and as we will be operating at break even with no ridiculous signings we will also have the luxury of having our season tiket money to divvy up between the two.

Forever? That's where you're wrong. Busted anyhow, so no use continuing this conversation.

I understand perfectly well what you are saying. Our club operates with a monthly negative cash flow. This is currently being addressed by our owners bank rolling us to the tune of 1.2 million per month. As a long term strategy, negative cash flows are obviously bad and could lead to future liquidation. What you have failed to address for me is the simple fact of timing. If our investors discontinue bank rolling the club how do we survive long enough to implement your proposed cost cutting measures while remaining a solvent business entity?

You are choosing the gun at your head, I am choosing the gun down the street.

Player sales will generate a lump sum, maybe even as much as 50% of the debt owed to Sam with the rest being set as a payment plan over the course of say 3 years. Sam wants his money, he isnt stupid and would accept that.

Then we go down the route of running at break even, its the off season now and a perfect time to renegotiate contracts etc.

Then we have season ticket money and any extra revenue above our break even s we can split amongst Tan and Sam. 6- 7 years later - debt free and a club we can have for our grandkids and can build sensibly with.

So here's the question. Malaysians leave tomorrow. How long can we last?

Forever. why not.

If we can sell Mason, Earnie, Whitts, Hudson and Miller then use maybe a million for the squad and pay £6million each to Langston and Tan enabling us to do a deal for a payment plan for future payments.

We can put a realistic price on the stadium naming rights which can go straight to Langston, and as we will be operating at break even with no ridiculous signings we will also have the luxury of having our season tiket money to divvy up between the two.

Forever? That's where you're wrong. Busted anyhow, so no use continuing this conversation.

What? Where am I wrong?

Ive outlined a great financial and feasable plan to go forward with. Again its fact not opinion

Oh, and thanks for confirming you're a liar.

You claim you're against "the malaysians" plans.

Since you're allegedly Malaysian wouldn't you have said you were against Tan's plans? You know, Tan the guy you claimed to be an ex business partner of.

Or maybe you were using Google translate after all.

Face it kid, you've been busted by a greater intellect. It happens.

What are you wittering on about?

Which part of it was a joke are you struggling with.

Whether im Malaysian, czech, german, welsh or gambian it doesnt really make a difference. Whether im a pathological liar or not - it still doesnt make a difference.

im stating facts not opinion.

Ah right, the whole "initial post was just a joke really guv". Interesting you failed to use that excuse after the initial post challenging you.

Facts? Given you're a pathological liar, none of the figures you claim can be treated as facts because you've zero credibility to tell the truth.

You went from "jokingly" claiming to have been an ex partner of Tan's, had been involved with a Malaysian football club ( no doubt a joke ) to talking about "we".

Busted.

Oh, and thanks for confirming you're a liar.

You claim you're against "the malaysians" plans.

Since you're allegedly Malaysian wouldn't you have said you were against Tan's plans? You know, Tan the guy you claimed to be an ex business partner of.

Or maybe you were using Google translate after all.

Face it kid, you've been busted by a greater intellect. It happens.

What are you wittering on about?

Which part of it was a joke are you struggling with.

Whether im Malaysian, czech, german, welsh or gambian it doesnt really make a difference. Whether im a pathological liar or not - it still doesnt make a difference.

im stating facts not opinion.

1) Ah right, the whole "initial post was just a joke really guv". Interesting you failed to use that excuse after the initial post challenging you.

2) Facts? Given you're a pathological liar, none of the figures you claim can be treated as facts because you've zero credibility to tell the truth.

3) You went from "jokingly" claiming to have been an ex partner of Tan's, had been involved with a Malaysian football club ( no doubt a joke ) to talking about "we".

4) Busted.

1) errr I did, scroll up you pleb

2) doesnt matter if im a liar, facts are facts. if you care about the club then reserch.

3) and??.... you are having a bit of a mare here

4) McFly

Ok, pretending you do actually work in marketing, perhaps you can enlighten us all with your credentials for talking about the potential for sales in Malaysia for example.

The critical flaw you've made when comparing the sales with say Man Utd is that everything you postulate is simply an opinion. Man Utd, successful team, owned by an American. We'd by owned by a Malaysian, so you've ignored any "home" factor feeding into sales there.

Equally, nobody knows precisely what Tan's marketing approach will be, unless there's been another leak. hence you can't guesstimate how many we'd sell due to the many factors in play you have no knowledge of. As somebody who work in marketing, you'd know that straight away. Indeed, we gained shirt sponsorship through Tan's links with the Malay government, you've also forgotten that we've a footballing presence in Malaysia - the soccer schools, there's a youth league bearing our name.

Reducing wage bill, well that's happening. Quite a few high earners will be going in summer, on Ridsdale contracts. Gives room on the salary front.

We need to address the financial issues by increasing income, reducing outgoings. Even someone in marketing understands that simple issue. The point being Tan's proposal of investment for equity means we become debt free. Which reduces money going on interest on loans, but also gives financial markets more confidence.

Having a Mare? Interesting word that. Maybe you're not a Jack after all.

I also spoke to a chinese man today, very pleasant man but he burnt my king prawns

Thanks for that, Jacky Boy.

Easy? The American owners have changed the badge back to retro liver bird, and dropped the 2 justice flames which honour hillsborough victims. Liverpool fans going ape about it.

They haven't announced plans to play in blue yet though

Liverpool sell 900,000 tops world wide We would be daft not to TRY and get a bit of that cash. We boviously won't get near that many but a doubling of sales may be possible with success.

Some people are so deluded its untrue!

Football clubs make 25% margin on football jerseys with the rest going back to the supplier/manufacturer. We sell around 8,000 jerseys per year, netting us 160k profit - that is in a country that know who we are, have a major fan base in and regularly watch us play.

Why the hell would a Malaysian football fan decide not to support Man Utd and Liverpool and wait for a 2nd tier club that he has never heard of, cant watch, has never seen and decide to support them instead??! its f*cking deluded. If Dragons and red meant success then Wales would shift thousands of jerseys over there, how many asians have you seen wearing a wales top?

We would struggle to sell 5,000 over there and even if we did, which would be incredible, it would only net us 50k. THIS is why the business model makes no sense and there is far more to Tans interest than this - THAT is why we should be concerned.

It won't only be shirt sales will it, there will be spin offs everywhere, he is a Malaysian businessman, I am sure he knows more than you ever will about branding in Malaysia, or are you cleverer and richer than him ??

If so you give us the £100Million and you can send us out in whatever colour shirts you like !!!