"Red or dead proved to be lies"

I have seen it mentioned on here so many times that red or dead has proven to be lies. Correct me if I am wrong, but when?

When has anybody come and said "there were other investors waiting to put money into the club if Tan walked away" Or anything along those lines?

The Red or Dead was a lie, it was scaremongering and used to get fans to back the despicable rebrand.
The court cases were over and Tan was already £40-£50 mill involved with City.
I asked Alan Whitley and Malky at a meeting a few weeks after the first couple of meetings we had, had with the club, whats the worse than would happen to us, if we dont accept the rebrand, the reply was " relegation or Tan will look to sell on. " I replied in front of 30 City fans incl TLG then " I would rather take the relegation than be stripped of our identity ."

yes you did i was there

I think Soulofthesea was drunk last night.

I have seen it mentioned on here so many times that red or dead has proven to be lies. Correct me if I am wrong, but when?

When has anybody come and said "there were other investors waiting to put money into the club if Tan walked away" Or anything along those lines?

The Red or Dead was a lie, it was scaremongering and used to get fans to back the despicable rebrand.
The court cases were over and Tan was already £40-£50 mill involved with City.
I asked Alan Whitley and Malky at a meeting a few weeks after the first couple of meetings we had, had with the club, whats the worse than would happen to us, if we dont accept the rebrand, the reply was " relegation or Tan will look to sell on. " I replied in front of 30 City fans incl TLG then " I would rather take the relegation than be stripped of our identity ."

Did you miss the four winding up orders we had in 2009/10, we were doomed and only Tan's money saved us. Ironically our identity and history only continues to even exist because of Tan's money.

The £6m investment to stave off the court orders had nothing to do with the rebranding.

The chance to become self sufficient was then, however it was far more fun to overspend by over a million a month and let Tan loan it to you... You were then crippled come "rebrand day".

The £6m investment to stave off the court orders had nothing to do with the rebranding.

The chance to become self sufficient was then, however it was far more fun to overspend by over a million a month and let Tan loan it to you... You were then crippled come "rebrand day".

Don't know why I'm bothering to respond to you but here goes....

Tan paid off the £6m in May/June 2010. Otherwise the club would have definitely folded. This meant his money was keeping the club going. He continued to cover the clubs reported £1.2m a month losses until May 2012 when the rebrand first sprang up, where his support would have been withdrawn had we not been rebranded.

Don't know why I'm bothering to respond to you but here goes....

because as always I talk complete and utter sense...

Tan paid off the £6m in May/June 2010. Otherwise the club would have definitely folded. This meant his money was keeping the club going. He continued to cover the clubs reported £1.2m a month losses until May 2012 when the rebrand first sprang up, where his support would have been withdrawn had we not been rebranded.

Again. After June 2010 you had the chance to become self sufficient and sell assets amd renegotiate contracts in order to pay off the majority of the debt and leave the rest manageable,

Instead you allowed Tan to cover the overspend for yet more "punts" at the big time on borrowed money you couldn't afford to pay back. By the time another attempt failed you were in it up to your necks and good for plucking.

Don't know why I'm bothering to respond to you but here goes....

because as always I talk complete and utter sense...

Tan paid off the £6m in May/June 2010. Otherwise the club would have definitely folded. This meant his money was keeping the club going. He continued to cover the clubs reported £1.2m a month losses until May 2012 when the rebrand first sprang up, where his support would have been withdrawn had we not been rebranded.

Again. After June 2010 you had the chance to become self sufficient and sell assets amd renegotiate contracts in order to pay off the majority of the debt and leave the rest manageable,

Instead you allowed Tan to cover the overspend for yet more "punts" at the big time on borrowed money you couldn't afford to pay back. By the time another attempt failed you were in it up to your necks and good for plucking.

The only asset we had was the stadium, and with no stadium we have no club. Most of our squad, as they left in summer 2011, had one year left on contracts and there is no guarantee they would have dropped a wage. If they had left we would have got a paltry fee as they had only one year left on contract. Selling the team would also have guaranteed relegation which would have caused more financial woes with our 27,000 seat stadium in League One or Two.

Plus, whilst the £6m debt was the one that would have bankrupted us. The £24m or so debt to Langston due to our past owner was also still present.

We needed investment to keep the club going and only VT was willing to provide that, and he has provided spectacularly.

Don't know why I'm bothering to respond to you but here goes....

because as always I talk complete and utter sense...

Tan paid off the £6m in May/June 2010. Otherwise the club would have definitely folded. This meant his money was keeping the club going. He continued to cover the clubs reported £1.2m a month losses until May 2012 when the rebrand first sprang up, where his support would have been withdrawn had we not been rebranded.

Again. After June 2010 you had the chance to become self sufficient and sell assets amd renegotiate contracts in order to pay off the majority of the debt and leave the rest manageable,

Instead you allowed Tan to cover the overspend for yet more "punts" at the big time on borrowed money you couldn't afford to pay back. By the time another attempt failed you were in it up to your necks and good for plucking.

The only asset we had was the stadium, and with no stadium we have no club. Most of our squad, as they left in summer 2011, had one year left on contracts and there is no guarantee they would have dropped a wage. If they had left we would have got a paltry fee as they had only one year left on contract. Selling the team would also have guaranteed relegation which would have caused more financial woes with our 27,000 seat stadium in League One or Two.

Rubbish. Then how come you were losing £1.2m a month. Its because you were paying Bellamy £35k a week et al. Your income was £14.7m and your wage bill was £17.2m - that increased and not decreased. At the time of the £6m investment you were in debt by about £28m in total, hardly any if that was immediate debt.

Plus, whilst the £6m debt was the one that would have bankrupted us. The £24m or so debt to Langston due to our past owner was also still present.

the debt wasnt £6m, it was £1.7m - you had a surplus of £4.3m after you settled your court case.... Than naturally contributed to more spending and not debt settling.

We needed investment to keep the club going and only VT was willing to provide that, and he has provided spectacularly.

you needed loans to keep the club spending wildly, and yes VT was more than a happy loan shark.

Roathie, I've got to ask...

Why have you got so much interest in our accounts? You know income levels from four years ago & reference player wages?

I personally couldn't tell you how much my own club made in income four years ago, never mind Swansea's & quite frankly, I couldn't care less.

Just intrigued as to why you have such a high level of interest in accounts that don't even belong to the team you support?

Don't know why I'm bothering to respond to you but here goes....

because as always I talk complete and utter sense...

Tan paid off the £6m in May/June 2010. Otherwise the club would have definitely folded. This meant his money was keeping the club going. He continued to cover the clubs reported £1.2m a month losses until May 2012 when the rebrand first sprang up, where his support would have been withdrawn had we not been rebranded.

Again. After June 2010 you had the chance to become self sufficient and sell assets amd renegotiate contracts in order to pay off the majority of the debt and leave the rest manageable,

Instead you allowed Tan to cover the overspend for yet more "punts" at the big time on borrowed money you couldn't afford to pay back. By the time another attempt failed you were in it up to your necks and good for plucking.

The only asset we had was the stadium, and with no stadium we have no club. Most of our squad, as they left in summer 2011, had one year left on contracts and there is no guarantee they would have dropped a wage. If they had left we would have got a paltry fee as they had only one year left on contract. Selling the team would also have guaranteed relegation which would have caused more financial woes with our 27,000 seat stadium in League One or Two.

Rubbish. Then how come you were losing £1.2m a month. Its because you were paying Bellamy £35k a week et al. Your income was £14.7m and your wage bill was £17.2m - that increased and not decreased. At the time of the £6m investment you were in debt by about £28m in total, hardly any if that was immediate debt.

Plus, whilst the £6m debt was the one that would have bankrupted us. The £24m or so debt to Langston due to our past owner was also still present.

the debt wasnt £6m, it was £1.7m - you had a surplus of £4.3m after you settled your court case.... Than naturally contributed to more spending and not debt settling.

We needed investment to keep the club going and only VT was willing to provide that, and he has provided spectacularly.

you needed loans to keep the club spending wildly, and yes VT was more than a happy loan shark.

'Bluebirds boss Dave Jones said Chan has told the players his consortium are "in it for the long haul" as they deal with Cardiff's estimated £30m debt.
"All the speculation that he is going sell it and everything else," he said.
"He reiterated he was in it for the long haul. They have put a lot of money in and wants to get it right."
A Malaysian consortium - backed by billionaire property magnate Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun - has already invested £6m to help stabilise the debt-ridden Welsh club since taking over from Peter Ridsdale as major shareholder in May.'

BBC, 11 August 2010

As I said, even before Bellamy, there were a lot of players on high wages (Bothroyd, Chopra, Burke, Whittingham, McPhail et al) before Tan even invested. It wouldn't have worked to sell players as most of the above were not on long contracts and we would not have received much money and only dropped down the divisions.

I'm not defending the spending after Tan's takeover, but the damage was done before he even invested.

Roathie, I've got to ask...

Why have you got so much interest in our accounts? You know income levels from four years ago & reference player wages?

I personally couldn't tell you how much my own club made in income four years ago, never mind Swansea's & quite frankly, I couldn't care less.

Just intrigued as to why you have such a high level of interest in accounts that don't even belong to the team you support?

Correction - he claims to know

I wouldn't leave vince tan suck my mother in laws titty,
but i'd suck him off if he turned debt to equity!

Roathie, I've got to ask...

Why have you got so much interest in our accounts? You know income levels from four years ago & reference player wages?

I personally couldn't tell you how much my own club made in income four years ago, never mind Swansea's & quite frankly, I couldn't care less.

Just intrigued as to why you have such a high level of interest in accounts that don't even belong to the team you support?

Correction - he claims to know

No claiming going on here sunshine, i do know

Roathie, I've got to ask...

Why have you got so much interest in our accounts? You know income levels from four years ago & reference player wages?

I personally couldn't tell you how much my own club made in income four years ago, never mind Swansea's & quite frankly, I couldn't care less.

Just intrigued as to why you have such a high level of interest in accounts that don't even belong to the team you support?

The fact you don't know your own clubs accounts probably goes to show why so many of your fans are in the dark. Since the Petty days I know everything there is to know about our accounts and have taken a keen interest in yours too being our main rivals.

I am a businessman myself as you know. Your accounts and approach to business is fascinating, and not in a good way.

I wouldn't leave vince tan suck my mother in laws titty,
but i'd suck him off if he turned debt to equity!

your in a small minority though.........most want to beat him to death no matter what

'Bluebirds boss Dave Jones said Chan has told the players his consortium are "in it for the long haul" as they deal with Cardiff's estimated £30m debt.
"All the speculation that he is going sell it and everything else," he said.
"He reiterated he was in it for the long haul. They have put a lot of money in and wants to get it right."
A Malaysian consortium - backed by billionaire property magnate Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun - has already invested £6m to help stabilise the debt-ridden Welsh club since taking over from Peter Ridsdale as major shareholder in May.'

this is nothing to do with any point made.

BBC, 11 August 2010

As I said, even before Bellamy, there were a lot of players on high wages (Bothroyd, Chopra, Burke, Whittingham, McPhail et al) before Tan even invested. It wouldn't have worked to sell players as most of the above were not on long contracts and we would not have received much money and only dropped down the divisions.

you would have got what you needed which combined with a land sale would have paid of Sam to the tune of £10m as we know is the figure he would have accepted. That would have seen way to other revenue streams such as stadium sponsorships.


I'm not defending the spending after Tan's takeover, but the damage was done before he even invested.

i disagree wholeheartedly.

The damage was done in terms of being able to service it without competing anymore but the damage was not done in terms of red or dead as they claim.

The fact you don't know your own clubs accounts probably goes to show why so many of your fans are in the dark. Since the Petty days I know everything there is to know about our accounts and have taken a keen interest in yours too being our main rivals.

I am a businessman myself as you know. Your accounts and approach to business is fascinating, and not in a good way.

I take interest, but certainly. Have no interest in knowing down to decimal figures. Just like I have little/no interest in that level of accounting of any other sports team I follow.

I certainly don't have that level of interest in Swansea's accounts.

The fact you don't know your own clubs accounts probably goes to show why so many of your fans are in the dark. Since the Petty days I know everything there is to know about our accounts and have taken a keen interest in yours too being our main rivals.

I am a businessman myself as you know. Your accounts and approach to business is fascinating, and not in a good way.

I take interest, but certainly. Have no interest in knowing down to decimal figures. Just like I have little/no interest in that level of accounting of any other sports team I follow.

I certainly don't have that level of interest in Swansea's accounts.

i love that line and you use it often..you are a business man yourself........waw...nobody else falls into that category do they?
accounts young man can be manipulated..
and regards our accounts..tan {THE NON INTEREST CHARGING LOAN SHARK } owns the club and the debt.............which means he can do very much as he please with it
which pretty much means all the time you spend in books is worthless,
f**k you really dont join the dots do you
quite a few brains absolutly no common sense

'Bluebirds boss Dave Jones said Chan has told the players his consortium are "in it for the long haul" as they deal with Cardiff's estimated £30m debt.
"All the speculation that he is going sell it and everything else," he said.
"He reiterated he was in it for the long haul. They have put a lot of money in and wants to get it right."
A Malaysian consortium - backed by billionaire property magnate Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun - has already invested £6m to help stabilise the debt-ridden Welsh club since taking over from Peter Ridsdale as major shareholder in May.'

this is nothing to do with any point made.

BBC, 11 August 2010

As I said, even before Bellamy, there were a lot of players on high wages (Bothroyd, Chopra, Burke, Whittingham, McPhail et al) before Tan even invested. It wouldn't have worked to sell players as most of the above were not on long contracts and we would not have received much money and only dropped down the divisions.

you would have got what you needed which combined with a land sale would have paid of Sam to the tune of £10m as we know is the figure he would have accepted. That would have seen way to other revenue streams such as stadium sponsorships.


I'm not defending the spending after Tan's takeover, but the damage was done before he even invested.

i disagree wholeheartedly.

The damage was done in terms of being able to service it without competing anymore but the damage was not done in terms of red or dead as they claim.

damage?????? we are playing in the prem{ all be it for maybe just 1 year }.....have a billionaire owner..and play in a new stadium to full houses...........no billionaire would have touched us 15years ago...........the people that did saw potential..they gambled on Cardiff becoming a lot more.and put Cardiff in a position that the likes of tan wud buy...........the debt is tans..he decides what he can service...there is no YOU..you say your a business man, well those decisions are yours roath not your customers........or do you think that you customers have their own message board chatting about your business and refer to it as we ours yours?

I take interest, but certainly. Have no interest in knowing down to decimal figures. Just like I have little/no interest in that level of accounting of any other sports team I follow.

I certainly don't have that level of interest in Swansea's accounts.

Not really sure what you are getting at Chucks.

damage??????

yes

we are playing in the prem{ all be it for maybe just 1 year }

so?

.....have a billionaire owner

he is a billionaire - that doesnt mean cardiff are, it usually means more debt for the club

..and play in a new stadium to full houses

so do many

...........no billionaire would have touched us 15years ago

you are saying that as if it is a good thing you have a foreign investor?

...........the people that did saw potential..they gambled on Cardiff becoming a lot more.and put Cardiff in a position that the likes of tan wud buy...........the debt is tans..

no, the debt is Cardiff City's, to claim otherwise is not only factually incorrect but incredibly stupid.

he decides what he can service...there is no YOU..you say your a business man, well those decisions are yours roath not your customers........or do you think that you customers have their own message board chatting about your business and refer to it as we ours yours?

can someone translate?

I take interest, but certainly. Have no interest in knowing down to decimal figures. Just like I have little/no interest in that level of accounting of any other sports team I follow.

I certainly don't have that level of interest in Swansea's accounts.

Not really sure what you are getting at Chucks.

Not getting at anything mate. Just intrigued by your level of interest in our accounts.

i love that line and you use it often..you are a business man yourself........waw...nobody else falls into that category do they?

I have no idea, what I do know however is if any of the people I discuss accounts with on here have businesses then I despair and can certainly see why the UK is in a poor economic state.

accounts young man can be manipulated..

go on.....

and regards our accounts..tan {THE NON INTEREST CHARGING LOAN SHARK } owns the club and the debt.............



1. He did charge interest, he was owed interest to the tune of £5m and then took shares as payment and claimed he had "written it off".

2. The interest in terms of monitory payments is in terms of a free ride at your expense. He lends you money to try and make himself some, if it fails he claims it back as its just "a loan".

which means he can do very much as he please with it

like turn it red you mean? Yes we know, hence the discussion.

which pretty much means all the time you spend in books is worthless,
f**k you really dont join the dots do you
quite a few brains absolutly no common sense

that makes no sense. What do you mean the books are worthless?

Thats a frightening statement.

'Bluebirds boss Dave Jones said Chan has told the players his consortium are "in it for the long haul" as they deal with Cardiff's estimated £30m debt.
"All the speculation that he is going sell it and everything else," he said.
"He reiterated he was in it for the long haul. They have put a lot of money in and wants to get it right."
A Malaysian consortium - backed by billionaire property magnate Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun - has already invested £6m to help stabilise the debt-ridden Welsh club since taking over from Peter Ridsdale as major shareholder in May.'

this is nothing to do with any point made.

BBC, 11 August 2010

As I said, even before Bellamy, there were a lot of players on high wages (Bothroyd, Chopra, Burke, Whittingham, McPhail et al) before Tan even invested. It wouldn't have worked to sell players as most of the above were not on long contracts and we would not have received much money and only dropped down the divisions.

you would have got what you needed which combined with a land sale would have paid of Sam to the tune of £10m as we know is the figure he would have accepted. That would have seen way to other revenue streams such as stadium sponsorships.


I'm not defending the spending after Tan's takeover, but the damage was done before he even invested.

i disagree wholeheartedly.

The damage was done in terms of being able to service it without competing anymore but the damage was not done in terms of red or dead as they claim.

I've said all I need to say, you just keep going around in circles.

Roathie, I've got to ask...

Why have you got so much interest in our accounts? You know income levels from four years ago & reference player wages?

I personally couldn't tell you how much my own club made in income four years ago, never mind Swansea's & quite frankly, I couldn't care less.

Just intrigued as to why you have such a high level of interest in accounts that don't even belong to the team you support?

Correction - he claims to know

No claiming going on here sunshine, i do know

You know only one thing - nothing.

Ive done nothing of the sort, you havent combatted any if the points i have put to you.

In order to cut the debt you must sell what you own and cut expenditure, the opposite happened.

i love that line and you use it often..you are a business man yourself........waw...nobody else falls into that category do they?

I have no idea, what I do know however is if any of the people I discuss accounts with on here have businesses then I despair and can certainly see why the UK is in a poor economic state.

accounts young man can be manipulated..

go on.....

and regards our accounts..tan {THE NON INTEREST CHARGING LOAN SHARK } owns the club and the debt.............



1. He did charge interest, he was owed interest to the tune of £5m and then took shares as payment and claimed he had "written it off".

2. The interest in terms of monitory payments is in terms of a free ride at your expense. He lends you money to try and make himself some, if it fails he claims it back as its just "a loan".

which means he can do very much as he please with it

like turn it red you mean? Yes we know, hence the discussion.

which pretty much means all the time you spend in books is worthless,
f**k you really dont join the dots do you
quite a few brains absolutly no common sense

that makes no sense. What do you mean the books are worthless?

Thats a frightening statement.

id like to debate,but you dont.............like red you mean? no its obvious that isnt what i meant, i mean with the finances.
and books are worthless if you do not grasp that knowledge doesnt begin and end within that book...
i know lots and lots of young men with business degrees filling shelves in supermarkets........more qualified than myself to run my business..........i wouldnt leave most of them near it.............qualified doesnt mean better.........you have to bend,be flexible,look for loop holes, trade in grey areas on times and some times go on gut instinct..
accounts..........often an accountant will advise to put something somewhere else on your accounts for tax purposes.......many manipulate accounts themselves........
the debt?.........if tan chose to........could he sell the club to you for a £1 and then tell you you owe him 100mil payable over a thousand years with no interest...........he can.......so your guessing

What you have written there makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

And thats being kind.

Iopemyou have an accountant for that business soulofthesea

What you have written there makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

And thats being kind.

i knew it wouldnt................try business for parrots volume4