Fao Natman & CJBluebird 17

I wasnt going to but he is adorable in his naivety

The thread was actually about whether Tan had said he would do it within a matter of days or not. annis made the statement that Tan had promised that he would convert debt to equity in days and I questioned him on it as to provide evidence. This was his attempt and providing that.

I still maintain that even from that evidence the debt to equity and a debt free club is still a long term strategy. Not, as has been used as another stick, days.

Thats your opinion. Time will tell on that, however full debt to equity doesn't, and never had, made any business sense what so ever.

However you can make a club debt free in many ways. The most likely in a company where debt outweighs equity heavily is asset stripping as ive said from day 1 of his tenure.

I don't see asset stripping as a viable option. even then there would not be enough revenue to recoup the debt.

Its interesting in that article from ITV to gain glimpses of Tan's long term strategic aim of developing a football empire. In it assets will easily and minimally traded up into a higher league in order to significantly increase retail value (Wanyama is the example he uses). we've been seeing that happen this season as the Cardiff City net is spreading further to incorporate other clubs in other leagues. We find a potential star within the Bosnian league, either within the feeder or externally. He can be tested a FK Sarajevo and if he performs potentially come to Cardiff. If it works there then obviously is sale on value could increase significantly paying dividends for Tan and the club. This can be replicated across a number of other clubs in effect making Cardiff the highest platform on which to display talent and get maximum return on investment. It's happened at Watford and Udinese.

However, this debate wasn't about whether debt to equity would work. its was about the claim of what the time frames for this and a debt free club would be. Annis made a statement in another thread claiming Tan had said it would be days, I've always maintained that Tan has never made such a statement. It has always been a long term plan. This would though go against your asset stripping view and the view that he wants to get out next season. if he does then he would be cutting off the highest platform on which to display talent, unless he finds another club. Which would be a shame as this could be of real long term benefit to Cardiff.

As much as it pains me to say it, Roathy/Barry are right! And i'm finding it quite funny how you people can't
understand or grasp the concept of what Tan has done, it's pretty simple.

As much as it pains me to say it, Roathy/Barry are right! And i'm finding it quite funny how you people can't
understand or grasp the concept of what Tan has done, it's pretty simple.

We'll all find out one way or another at the end of the day. They are nothing ore than theories, we just need to keep a calm head between the fans.

I wasnt going to but he is adorable in his naivety

The thread was actually about whether Tan had said he would do it within a matter of days or not. annis made the statement that Tan had promised that he would convert debt to equity in days and I questioned him on it as to provide evidence. This was his attempt and providing that.

I still maintain that even from that evidence the debt to equity and a debt free club is still a long term strategy. Not, as has been used as another stick, days.

Thats your opinion. Time will tell on that, however full debt to equity doesn't, and never had, made any business sense what so ever.

However you can make a club debt free in many ways. The most likely in a company where debt outweighs equity heavily is asset stripping as ive said from day 1 of his tenure.

I don't see asset stripping as a viable option. even then there would not be enough revenue to recoup the debt.

Its interesting in that article from ITV to gain glimpses of Tan's long term strategic aim of developing a football empire. In it assets will easily and minimally traded up into a higher league in order to significantly increase retail value (Wanyama is the example he uses). we've been seeing that happen this season as the Cardiff City net is spreading further to incorporate other clubs in other leagues. We find a potential star within the Bosnian league, either within the feeder or externally. He can be tested a FK Sarajevo and if he performs potentially come to Cardiff. If it works there then obviously is sale on value could increase significantly paying dividends for Tan and the club. This can be replicated across a number of other clubs in effect making Cardiff the highest platform on which to display talent and get maximum return on investment. It's happened at Watford and Udinese.

However, this debate wasn't about whether debt to equity would work. its was about the claim of what the time frames for this and a debt free club would be. Annis made a statement in another thread claiming Tan had said it would be days, I've always maintained that Tan has never made such a statement. It has always been a long term plan. This would though go against your asset stripping view and the view that he wants to get out next season. if he does then he would be cutting off the highest platform on which to display talent, unless he finds another club. Which would be a shame as this could be of real long term benefit to Cardiff.

Asset stripping along with a share sale is perfectly viable as ive shown countless times.

This "if we find a star at sarejevo" is just pie in the sky really and not a solid and viable business plan at all. We must look at most likely scenarios.

As much as it pains me to say it, Roathy/Barry are right! And i'm finding it quite funny how you people can't
understand or grasp the concept of what Tan has done, it's pretty simple.

Its not a difficult concept to understand for anyone with an ounce of intelligence

Simple but brilliant, you need foresight and a clear exit plan in order to execute it and then to do it at the right time is essential. He played it perfectly.

I wasnt going to but he is adorable in his naivety

The thread was actually about whether Tan had said he would do it within a matter of days or not. annis made the statement that Tan had promised that he would convert debt to equity in days and I questioned him on it as to provide evidence. This was his attempt and providing that.

I still maintain that even from that evidence the debt to equity and a debt free club is still a long term strategy. Not, as has been used as another stick, days.

Thats your opinion. Time will tell on that, however full debt to equity doesn't, and never had, made any business sense what so ever.

However you can make a club debt free in many ways. The most likely in a company where debt outweighs equity heavily is asset stripping as ive said from day 1 of his tenure.

I don't see asset stripping as a viable option. even then there would not be enough revenue to recoup the debt.

Its interesting in that article from ITV to gain glimpses of Tan's long term strategic aim of developing a football empire. In it assets will easily and minimally traded up into a higher league in order to significantly increase retail value (Wanyama is the example he uses). we've been seeing that happen this season as the Cardiff City net is spreading further to incorporate other clubs in other leagues. We find a potential star within the Bosnian league, either within the feeder or externally. He can be tested a FK Sarajevo and if he performs potentially come to Cardiff. If it works there then obviously is sale on value could increase significantly paying dividends for Tan and the club. This can be replicated across a number of other clubs in effect making Cardiff the highest platform on which to display talent and get maximum return on investment. It's happened at Watford and Udinese.

However, this debate wasn't about whether debt to equity would work. its was about the claim of what the time frames for this and a debt free club would be. Annis made a statement in another thread claiming Tan had said it would be days, I've always maintained that Tan has never made such a statement. It has always been a long term plan. This would though go against your asset stripping view and the view that he wants to get out next season. if he does then he would be cutting off the highest platform on which to display talent, unless he finds another club. Which would be a shame as this could be of real long term benefit to Cardiff.

Asset stripping along with a share sale is perfectly viable as ive shown countless times.

This "if we find a star at sarejevo" is just pie in the sky really and not a solid and viable business plan at all. We must look at most likely scenarios.

It would all depend on whether he is looking for a quick return or a long term profit. Current actions would suggest the latter, not the former.

I disagree. A long term plan places his business strategy in the realm of self sufficiency, it is as far from that as one could wish.

Debt rising from £30m to £150m with wages at 189% of turnover screams short term.

I disagree. A long term plan places his business strategy in the realm of self sufficiency, it is as far from that as one could wish.

Debt rising from £30m to £150m with wages at 189% of turnover screams short term.

Yes. But Man City for example had to have a large immediate outlay, same with Chelsea. In order to maneuver the club into the realms of being able to be financially self-sustaining there needs to be an initial large investment in order to get to that position. This to a large degree is the unjust nature of the new FFP regulations. As much as it is aimed to stop smaller clubs living outside of their means it will equally ensure that the bigger clubs maintain their status in dining at the biggest tables of them all (the champions league and the premier league). There are smaller clubs who may buck this trend and get to the Premier League like Swansea but all other can now effectively forget about competing at the top end and joining Europe's elite.

That is why generally you have business loans, is it not? In order that a business is able to accommodate a perspective rapid expansion project in a short time frame to meet customer demands as opposed to gradual growth which could see it lose its position in the market and others take advantage of said business opportunity.

Tan and not the banks (like with Sam) is now providing that investment for rapid growth in the short to medium term. The plan was "God willing" that we were to stay in the Premier League for a the long term. This hasn't happened and the plan has had to accommodate this set back. The plane will then be to put the new business model in place to ensure our long term sustainability. Other clubs have done it on the back of sponsorship packages, Tan is looking at it from the perspective of a larger commercial portfolio amongst other hings.

I disagree. A long term plan places his business strategy in the realm of self sufficiency, it is as far from that as one could wish.

Debt rising from £30m to £150m with wages at 189% of turnover screams short term.

Yes. But Man City for example had to have a large immediate outlay, same with Chelsea. In order to maneuver the club into the realms of being able to be financially self-sustaining there needs to be an initial large investment in order to get to that position. This to a large degree is the unjust nature of the new FFP regulations. As much as it is aimed to stop smaller clubs living outside of their means it will equally ensure that the bigger clubs maintain their status in dining at the biggest tables of them all (the champions league and the premier league). There are smaller clubs who may buck this trend and get to the Premier League like Swansea but all other can now effectively forget about competing at the top end and joining Europe's elite.

That is why generally you have business loans, is it not? In order that a business is able to accommodate a perspective rapid expansion project in a short time frame to meet customer demands as opposed to gradual growth which could see it lose its position in the market and others take advantage of said business opportunity.

Tan and not the banks (like with Sam) is now providing that investment for rapid growth in the short to medium term. The plan was "God willing" that we were to stay in the Premier League for a the long term. This hasn't happened and the plan has had to accommodate this set back. The plane will then be to put the new business model in place to ensure our long term sustainability. Other clubs have done it on the back of sponsorship packages, Tan is looking at it from the perspective of a larger commercial portfolio amongst other hings.

No, its nothing like Man City or Chelsea. Neither is seen as a business project. It always amazes me when people attempt to draw that parallel.

And also no, a business loam is not to facilitate rapid growth, in fact if that were your reasoning behind the loan request i dont think you would be very successful in your aplication

I have no doubt that Tan will be gone if you fail to go up this year.

I disagree. A long term plan places his business strategy in the realm of self sufficiency, it is as far from that as one could wish.

Debt rising from £30m to £150m with wages at 189% of turnover screams short term.

Yes. But Man City for example had to have a large immediate outlay, same with Chelsea. In order to maneuver the club into the realms of being able to be financially self-sustaining there needs to be an initial large investment in order to get to that position. This to a large degree is the unjust nature of the new FFP regulations. As much as it is aimed to stop smaller clubs living outside of their means it will equally ensure that the bigger clubs maintain their status in dining at the biggest tables of them all (the champions league and the premier league). There are smaller clubs who may buck this trend and get to the Premier League like Swansea but all other can now effectively forget about competing at the top end and joining Europe's elite.

That is why generally you have business loans, is it not? In order that a business is able to accommodate a perspective rapid expansion project in a short time frame to meet customer demands as opposed to gradual growth which could see it lose its position in the market and others take advantage of said business opportunity.

Tan and not the banks (like with Sam) is now providing that investment for rapid growth in the short to medium term. The plan was "God willing" that we were to stay in the Premier League for a the long term. This hasn't happened and the plan has had to accommodate this set back. The plane will then be to put the new business model in place to ensure our long term sustainability. Other clubs have done it on the back of sponsorship packages, Tan is looking at it from the perspective of a larger commercial portfolio amongst other hings.

No, its nothing like Man City or Chelsea. Neither is seen as a business project. It always amazes me when people attempt to draw that parallel.

And also no, a business loam is not to facilitate rapid growth, in fact if that were your reasoning behind the loan request i dont think you would be very successful in your aplication

I have no doubt that Tan will be gone if you fail to go up this year.

So what are saying is that there are no plans for sustainability in regards to Chelsea or Man City and the investors are going to keep pumping in considerable sums of money until the wells run dry (no pun intended) or until they can sell the club on at significant lost or just let the club go bust and take a significant hit?

I think then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I still hold that Tan has a long term business strategy in keeping with his current activities and there is nothing I or anyone else can say that will stop you doing what you do. We'll find out one day who is right or wrong.

I can understand another fan wanting to talk with fans on another forum but I can't to the life of me think why a fan of a rival would constantly post on another board in the manner you do for the purposes of being some kind of protector to the club's financial interests. I can only think that perhaps that isn't your overall aim, but you're allowed to continue because you obviously then support the anti-tan agenda.

This is what confuses me about the drive of this board;

If you are meant to be a true Cardiff Supporter = anti-tan
But here is a Swansea supporter = anti-tan

Sorry, but something just doesn't add up there!

Isn't it strange how Roath jumps on a thread where the anti-tan bandwagon starts get a beating and completely derails it onto something else hmmmmm

a bit like you and I bro,lets finish of the mods bro

As much as it pains me to say it, Roathy/Barry are right! And i'm finding it quite funny how you people can't
understand or grasp the concept of what Tan has done, it's pretty simple.

We'll all find out one way or another at the end of the day. They are nothing ore than theories, we just need to keep a calm head between the fans.

Yes bro lets keep calm, Tan will finish the blue's once and for all

As much as it pains me to say it, Roathy/Barry are right! And i'm finding it quite funny how you people can't
understand or grasp the concept of what Tan has done, it's pretty simple.

I keep telling my bro that they got it right and we are wrong,yet he says we have to back Tan and drive the blue out

I wasnt going to but he is adorable in his naivety

The thread was actually about whether Tan had said he would do it within a matter of days or not. annis made the statement that Tan had promised that he would convert debt to equity in days and I questioned him on it as to provide evidence. This was his attempt and providing that.

I still maintain that even from that evidence the debt to equity and a debt free club is still a long term strategy. Not, as has been used as another stick, days.

Thats your opinion. Time will tell on that, however full debt to equity doesn't, and never had, made any business sense what so ever.

However you can make a club debt free in many ways. The most likely in a company where debt outweighs equity heavily is asset stripping as ive said from day 1 of his tenure.

I don't see asset stripping as a viable option. even then there would not be enough revenue to recoup the debt.

Its interesting in that article from ITV to gain glimpses of Tan's long term strategic aim of developing a football empire. In it assets will easily and minimally traded up into a higher league in order to significantly increase retail value (Wanyama is the example he uses). we've been seeing that happen this season as the Cardiff City net is spreading further to incorporate other clubs in other leagues. We find a potential star within the Bosnian league, either within the feeder or externally. He can be tested a FK Sarajevo and if he performs potentially come to Cardiff. If it works there then obviously is sale on value could increase significantly paying dividends for Tan and the club. This can be replicated across a number of other clubs in effect making Cardiff the highest platform on which to display talent and get maximum return on investment. It's happened at Watford and Udinese.

However, this debate wasn't about whether debt to equity would work. its was about the claim of what the time frames for this and a debt free club would be. Annis made a statement in another thread claiming Tan had said it would be days, I've always maintained that Tan has never made such a statement. It has always been a long term plan. This would though go against your asset stripping view and the view that he wants to get out next season. if he does then he would be cutting off the highest platform on which to display talent, unless he finds another club. Which would be a shame as this could be of real long term benefit to Cardiff.

Spot on and the only thoughtful, sensible post on this thread.

I would ignore Roathie, he is clueless and actually seems a little despairing that VT might actually have a grand plan for the club.

I'm not worried about a debt to an owner who wants to stay at the club, it's if we force him out I will worry.

I would much rather owe Tan money than the banks (thanks Sam) or HMRC.

As Natman correctly says, all projects need a large investment to begin and an increased stadium and new training complex suggest a long-term plan rather than a short-term plan.

Interestingly Sol Campbell says in his autobiography that he was perplexed why Pompey never built a stadium or training ground with their investment. It's because they were never in it for the long haul, Tan is.

I disagree. A long term plan places his business strategy in the realm of self sufficiency, it is as far from that as one could wish.

Debt rising from £30m to £150m with wages at 189% of turnover screams short term.

Yes. But Man City for example had to have a large immediate outlay, same with Chelsea. In order to maneuver the club into the realms of being able to be financially self-sustaining there needs to be an initial large investment in order to get to that position. This to a large degree is the unjust nature of the new FFP regulations. As much as it is aimed to stop smaller clubs living outside of their means it will equally ensure that the bigger clubs maintain their status in dining at the biggest tables of them all (the champions league and the premier league). There are smaller clubs who may buck this trend and get to the Premier League like Swansea but all other can now effectively forget about competing at the top end and joining Europe's elite.

That is why generally you have business loans, is it not? In order that a business is able to accommodate a perspective rapid expansion project in a short time frame to meet customer demands as opposed to gradual growth which could see it lose its position in the market and others take advantage of said business opportunity.

Tan and not the banks (like with Sam) is now providing that investment for rapid growth in the short to medium term. The plan was "God willing" that we were to stay in the Premier League for a the long term. This hasn't happened and the plan has had to accommodate this set back. The plane will then be to put the new business model in place to ensure our long term sustainability. Other clubs have done it on the back of sponsorship packages, Tan is looking at it from the perspective of a larger commercial portfolio amongst other hings.

No, its nothing like Man City or Chelsea. Neither is seen as a business project. It always amazes me when people attempt to draw that parallel.

And also no, a business loam is not to facilitate rapid growth, in fact if that were your reasoning behind the loan request i dont think you would be very successful in your aplication

I have no doubt that Tan will be gone if you fail to go up this year.

So what are saying is that there are no plans for sustainability in regards to Chelsea or Man City and the investors are going to keep pumping in considerable sums of money until the wells run dry (no pun intended) or until they can sell the club on at significant lost or just let the club go bust and take a significant hit?

I think then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I still hold that Tan has a long term business strategy in keeping with his current activities and there is nothing I or anyone else can say that will stop you doing what you do. We'll find out one day who is right or wrong.

I can understand another fan wanting to talk with fans on another forum but I can't to the life of me think why a fan of a rival would constantly post on another board in the manner you do for the purposes of being some kind of protector to the club's financial interests. I can only think that perhaps that isn't your overall aim, but you're allowed to continue because you obviously then support the anti-tan agenda.

This is what confuses me about the drive of this board;

If you are meant to be a true Cardiff Supporter = anti-tan
But here is a Swansea supporter = anti-tan

Sorry, but something just doesn't add up there!

Keep eating the mushrooms

No, it's ok. I think if i were to take illegal mind altering substances it wouldn't help me to think as clearly as I currently do,

No, it's ok. I think if i were to take illegal mind altering substances it wouldn't help me to think as clearly as I currently do,

He says while chewing on another stalk

No, it's ok. I think if i were to take illegal mind altering substances it wouldn't help me to think as clearly as I currently do,

He sys while chewing on a stalk

Nope, lol. Just has a lovely sandwich and raisin pastry. unless they put funny things in Lidl's goods

No, it's ok. I think if i were to take illegal mind altering substances it wouldn't help me to think as clearly as I currently do,

He sys while chewing on a stalk

Nope, lol. Just has a lovely sandwich and raisin pastry. unless they put funny things in Lidl's goods

Me and my bro love a good puff

I disagree. A long term plan places his business strategy in the realm of self sufficiency, it is as far from that as one could wish.

Debt rising from £30m to £150m with wages at 189% of turnover screams short term.

Yes. But Man City for example had to have a large immediate outlay, same with Chelsea. In order to maneuver the club into the realms of being able to be financially self-sustaining there needs to be an initial large investment in order to get to that position. This to a large degree is the unjust nature of the new FFP regulations. As much as it is aimed to stop smaller clubs living outside of their means it will equally ensure that the bigger clubs maintain their status in dining at the biggest tables of them all (the champions league and the premier league). There are smaller clubs who may buck this trend and get to the Premier League like Swansea but all other can now effectively forget about competing at the top end and joining Europe's elite.

That is why generally you have business loans, is it not? In order that a business is able to accommodate a perspective rapid expansion project in a short time frame to meet customer demands as opposed to gradual growth which could see it lose its position in the market and others take advantage of said business opportunity.

Tan and not the banks (like with Sam) is now providing that investment for rapid growth in the short to medium term. The plan was "God willing" that we were to stay in the Premier League for a the long term. This hasn't happened and the plan has had to accommodate this set back. The plane will then be to put the new business model in place to ensure our long term sustainability. Other clubs have done it on the back of sponsorship packages, Tan is looking at it from the perspective of a larger commercial portfolio amongst other hings.

No, its nothing like Man City or Chelsea. Neither is seen as a business project. It always amazes me when people attempt to draw that parallel.

And also no, a business loam is not to facilitate rapid growth, in fact if that were your reasoning behind the loan request i dont think you would be very successful in your aplication

I have no doubt that Tan will be gone if you fail to go up this year.

I don't understand why this is being questioned, when Tan has charged the club interest and used this to purchase shares. This has happened. It isn't up for debate.

Tan's exit strategy (if he intends to walk away) will have been worked out from the outset. All successful businessmen will do this as a matter of course for obvious reasons.

An increasing spiral of debt will, of course, negatively affect the value of any business so Tan wins both ways here by maintaining an equilibrium of debt. Therefore his shares will keep their value.

The building and improvement of the stadium and establishment of an academy facility, etc. all give the club appeal if selling was ever an option. This benefits the club so it isn't a purely cynical investment, but can be looked at as protecting the investment.

I'm unsure of Tan's timeframe or intentions, but I don't think we should assume he will be here long-term. This is only my cautious opinion and I could well be wide of the mark. It just seems to me that too much is being inferred and interpolated re. VT.

Just saying.

Where has it happened? Honestly, i've not seen it so if you could post a link or something that would be great.

Where has it happened? Honestly, i've not seen it so if you could post a link or something that would be great.

Yes where has it happened, you tell them bro

As much as it pains me to say it, Roathy/Barry are right! And i'm finding it quite funny how you people can't
understand or grasp the concept of what Tan has done, it's pretty simple.

its not a case of not grasping........they are making a point how clever it is to charge yourself interest to spend on shares......trouble is ..the club does not have a value of 150million........or is likely to very soon....
so he can have as many shares as he likes..it will still be 90% of what the club is worth........the value of the club is what it might sell for..not how many shares there are.........a share is exactly what it says........if there are a million shares in a company that worth a mill..a share is worth 1 pound...........if you increase the amount of shares to 2million.......it doesnt mean you have increased the value of the club, just doubled the amount of shares, so they are devalued to 50p......

He still doesnt get it then.