6 months on..(don't read if you dislike rebrand threads)

I don't think it is the same and i think it's a mixture of expectations being too high and the rebrand, personally I could never walk away from the Club I love but seeing us play in Red at home just don't seem right

my passion level for the Club is at an all-time low, it doesnt really feel like the Club, that I fell in love with, anymore...

said it before and still say: would rather see us with our crest and in blue in league 2 than in red with that beermat in the premiership

Cardiff City Identity:

COLOURS: gone
CREST: gone
NINIAN PARK: gone
NAME: still there

Wouldn't be surprised if the nickname goes soon.

Almost six months have passed since we first became aware of the rebrand.

Has it been worth it so far?

On the positive side, Tan has invested heavily in the team and the squad looks strong in most positions. On the pitch, the club are flying with a 100% home record. Despite some indifferent recent displays,Cardiff City appear to be the real deal, capable of being a little off their best but still grinding out results.Cardiff's attendances appear to be holding up reasonably well too which given the furore over the rebranding and the tough economic times is a little surprising.

On the negative side,the home kit colour and badge have gone and the Bluebirds days seem numbered,given the reluctance of Ali to mention the 'B' word when Tan' is in the house.' Thus far,no debt to equity conversion has taken place,despite this being one of the major sweeteners for the deal.The rebrand has also undoubtedly divided the supporters like nothing else in the clubs history.

So,I suppose the questions are,how is it for you so far? Have the signings and the start to the season justified things for you? Are you more entrenched in your stance on the rebrand than before? Or have your views changed?

Thanks,

Alfie

No one can argue that they are now doing the business on the pitch or that the malaysians haven't invested. Also no one can give a decent answer as to why this couldn't have happened playing in blue with the proper badge.

No its not the same as it use to be-its better! Not a popular opinion with a lot of you I know but I've supported city through the bad times when the promises made by past owners and managers made a used car salesmans pitch look like the ten commandments.I'll never wish for a return to that shit for my club.Onwards and upwards.

Agree with some of that. But why couldn't the investment come with the team playing in blue and with the old badge. Other than the personal preference of the owner, there is no good reason. Utter bollocks about income streams from far east and future set of accounts will confirm that.

The passage of time does not make something that is wrong right. Signings nor promotion will not make it right even. To those who jumped on this craziness I ask two questions:

(1) How many shirts have we subsequently sold in the Far East?
(2) Has Tan converted his debt into equity?

StT.

The passage of time does not make something that is wrong right. Signings nor promotion will not make it right even. To those who jumped on this craziness I ask two questions:

(1) How many shirts have we subsequently sold in the Far East?
(2) Has Tan converted his debt into equity?

StT.

Questions like this are valid and so is the one that asks that we would still be successful if we were playing in blue.But these things take time and I beleive Tan will honour his promises just as he has with this years team funding.

The passage of time does not make something that is wrong right. Signings nor promotion will not make it right even. To those who jumped on this craziness I ask two questions:

(1) How many shirts have we subsequently sold in the Far East?
(2) Has Tan converted his debt into equity?

StT.

Questions like this are valid and so is the one that asks that we would still be successful if we were playing in blue.But these things take time and I beleive Tan will honour his promises just as he has with this years team funding.

If promoted then maybe, if not promoted, I fear for our club under Tan, he has already stripped us of our identity.

The passage of time does not make something that is wrong right. Signings nor promotion will not make it right even. To those who jumped on this craziness I ask two questions:

(1) How many shirts have we subsequently sold in the Far East?
(2) Has Tan converted his debt into equity?

StT.

Answer to 1, it doesn't matter if we sold none at all, I don't know for fact, but I hardly think a billionaire successful businessman based his investment and 100 million pound gamble on selling shirts in the far East. Now if you ever venture out there you will see thousands of people wearing Man United shirt, but for every thousand that you see, you'll be lucky to find on made and sold legitimately through Man united, they can copy and reproduce and flood the market with identical copies costing pennies within days of a new shirt being produced.
The red shirt and dragon is more to do with identity and far eastern culture and is the link I feel to hopefully attract sponsorship and investment rather than hookey shirts.

Answer to 2, How can he convert his debt to equity when Sam or langston still have not agreed a settlement with him, it is common knowledge, or at least I thought it was that this was made abundantly clear from the start, and until the Langston deal was done, no mare equity could be purchased for obvious business reasons.

The passage of time does not make something that is wrong right. Signings nor promotion will not make it right even. To those who jumped on this craziness I ask two questions:

(1) How many shirts have we subsequently sold in the Far East?
(2) Has Tan converted his debt into equity?

StT.

Answer to 1, it doesn't matter if we sold none at all, I don't know for fact, but I hardly think a billionaire successful businessman based his investment and 100 million pound gamble on selling shirts in the far East. Now if you ever venture out there you will see thousands of people wearing Man United shirt, but for every thousand that you see, you'll be lucky to find on made and sold legitimately through Man united, they can copy and reproduce and flood the market with identical copies costing pennies within days of a new shirt being produced.
The red shirt and dragon is more to do with identity and far eastern culture and is the link I feel to hopefully attract sponsorship and investment rather than hookey shirts.

Answer to 2, How can he convert his debt to equity when Sam or langston still have not agreed a settlement with him, it is common knowledge, or at least I thought it was that this was made abundantly clear from the start, and until the Langston deal was done, no mare equity could be purchased for obvious business reasons.

As regards answer 2, I don't think anyone expects Tan to convert debt to equity until a settlement is reached with Langston. I suppose the questions should be around why a billionaire is quibbling with Langston over,what to him,is relatively small change.This begs the question over whether Tan is serious about converting debt to equity,at this stage or is he waiting to see if this seasons gamble on reaching the premiership succeeds before switching debt to equity?

The passage of time does not make something that is wrong right. Signings nor promotion will not make it right even. To those who jumped on this craziness I ask two questions:

(1) How many shirts have we subsequently sold in the Far East?
(2) Has Tan converted his debt into equity?

StT.

Answer to 1, it doesn't matter if we sold none at all, I don't know for fact, but I hardly think a billionaire successful businessman based his investment and 100 million pound gamble on selling shirts in the far East. Now if you ever venture out there you will see thousands of people wearing Man United shirt, but for every thousand that you see, you'll be lucky to find on made and sold legitimately through Man united, they can copy and reproduce and flood the market with identical copies costing pennies within days of a new shirt being produced.
The red shirt and dragon is more to do with identity and far eastern culture and is the link I feel to hopefully attract sponsorship and investment rather than hookey shirts.

Answer to 2, How can he convert his debt to equity when Sam or langston still have not agreed a settlement with him, it is common knowledge, or at least I thought it was that this was made abundantly clear from the start, and until the Langston deal was done, no mare equity could be purchased for obvious business reasons.

As regards answer 2, I don't think anyone expects Tan to convert debt to equity until a settlement is reached with Langston. I suppose the questions should be around why a billionaire is quibbling with Langston over,what to him,is relatively small change.This begs the question over whether Tan is serious about converting debt to equity,at this stage or is he waiting to see if this seasons gamble on reaching the premiership succeeds before switching debt to equity?

Tan played games and had his chance at £10 mill and never took it, now it will cost him £20mill plus at least.

The passage of time does not make something that is wrong right. Signings nor promotion will not make it right even. To those who jumped on this craziness I ask two questions:

(1) How many shirts have we subsequently sold in the Far East?
(2) Has Tan converted his debt into equity?

StT.

Answer to 1, it doesn't matter if we sold none at all, I don't know for fact, but I hardly think a billionaire successful businessman based his investment and 100 million pound gamble on selling shirts in the far East. Now if you ever venture out there you will see thousands of people wearing Man United shirt, but for every thousand that you see, you'll be lucky to find on made and sold legitimately through Man united, they can copy and reproduce and flood the market with identical copies costing pennies within days of a new shirt being produced.
The red shirt and dragon is more to do with identity and far eastern culture and is the link I feel to hopefully attract sponsorship and investment rather than hookey shirts.

Answer to 2, How can he convert his debt to equity when Sam or langston still have not agreed a settlement with him, it is common knowledge, or at least I thought it was that this was made abundantly clear from the start, and until the Langston deal was done, no mare equity could be purchased for obvious business reasons.

As regards answer 2, I don't think anyone expects Tan to convert debt to equity until a settlement is reached with Langston. I suppose the questions should be around why a billionaire is quibbling with Langston over,what to him,is relatively small change.This begs the question over whether Tan is serious about converting debt to equity,at this stage or is he waiting to see if this seasons gamble on reaching the premiership succeeds before switching debt to equity?

Tan played games and had his chance at £10 mill and never took it, now it will cost him £20mill plus at least.[/quote

I may be proved wrong but I don't think that he will consider a debt to equity switch until premiership football is achieved.Why would he?

I think he is just creating smokescreens at the moment to give the impression he wants to settle.It buys him time and keeps supporters on board with his plans.

How is it for me?

Initially I found the question of rebrand about as palatable as being spitroasted by two men.

For me the club was being stripped of it's identity, history, traditions, integrity and it's soul.

Have I got the same affinity with CCFC/Kuala Lumpa Dragons.

Well no!

The most disappointing aspect to the whole farce is, not that an individual who who in reality has no affinity to CCFC wishes to buy a 'commodity' and rebrand it, but the fact the supporters would readily accept this farce all for the pursuit of Premier League football.

Sore arses and a mouthful of spunk for some!