' 3 YEARS & STILL WAITING '

Annis makes a good point, Tan had 2 years of us in red to do it so why didn't he??? Falling over himself with excuses? He could get his lawyers to sort it in a few weeks but no no no....I despair with the new breed of fans like wez, no wonder all our decent fans have long gone...you rep what you sow w high is why our stadium is like a morgue.....
And he only went back to blue because red was a complete disaster, we'd have under 10000 fans going now for sure if we were still bleeding to death in red....

New fans like Wez f**k off you bell end I've been going for 30 years so hardly a new f*cking fan ,you sound a bit of a bum chum with Annis

Yeah right, you sound like a newbee....

Ok you are the number 1 fan

Wez ffs why you getting in volved in debates with morons for ?
And dont stop posting on here ffs
realists are in short supply on here
at least you dont take bits of whats said and leave other bits out to suit an agenda hmmmm

And crowd levels are only dropping back to what they always were before we had our 'success'. At the end of the 90's we used to think 5,000 was a good crowd

I don't accept the argument that the debt to equity is off the agenda as we are back to blue. Tan turned us back to blue because we was about to lose a lot of income. Simple as that. So why should it be off the agenda?

Correct Ian

Our club is now far worse than before Tan arrived, fed up fans, an empty stadium and a far worse debt than before Tan came. Sadly all facts.

It was hardly full when he took over and in fact we were days from being liquidated.

I have a fact Annis. The only time CCS has been full is under Tan and in red.

Debt is relative to what we can pay. When debt was 40 or 50 million including debt to HMRC we were in a far, far worse position than now with a billionaire looking after us. No matter what you say he is doing that.

I don't accept the argument that the debt to equity is off the agenda as we are back to blue. Tan turned us back to blue because we was about to lose a lot of income. Simple as that. So why should it be off the agenda?

Correct Ian

Our club is now far worse than before Tan arrived, fed up fans, an empty stadium and a far worse debt than before Tan came. Sadly all facts.

It was hardly full when he took over and in fact we were days from being liquidated.

I have a fact Annis. The only time CCS has been full is under Tan and in red.

Debt is relative to what we can pay. When debt was 40 or 50 million including debt to HMRC we were in a far, far worse position than now with a billionaire looking after us. No matter what you say he is doing that.

Not quite true though.

1) the debt wasn't anywhere near as high as £40m or £50m when VT took over majority ownership.

2) CCFC is no longer being "looked after" by a billionaire. He remains a very wealthy man , but his wealth ( according to Forbes who monitor such things) is now around £700 m having lost over 25% of his wealth between 2014 and 2015.

3) The main debt would have been to Langston and was repayable over a number of years. The debt due to VT is repayable immediately on demand. The debt due to HMRC would have had to be dealt with in any case as the League no longer allows clubs to owe HMRC arrears - they have to report monthly on this.

4) VT is not the only remaining substantial creditor. Mehmet Dalman and his fellow consortium members are owed over £10m

Maybe it is nothing more than business and it suits Mr Tan to have a business losing money to offset other profitable businesses. Maybe there's nothing emotional about it for the owner, just there's a bigger picture than CCFC.

Maybe it is nothing more than business and it suits Mr Tan to have a business losing money to offset other profitable businesses. Maybe there's nothing emotional about it for the owner, just there's a bigger picture than CCFC.

Maybe Keith could answer if that is possible for tax purposes ? Is the money borrowed to the club from tan personaly or through a company?

I don't accept the argument that the debt to equity is off the agenda as we are back to blue. Tan turned us back to blue because we was about to lose a lot of income. Simple as that. So why should it be off the agenda?

Correct Ian

Our club is now far worse than before Tan arrived, fed up fans, an empty stadium and a far worse debt than before Tan came. Sadly all facts.

It was hardly full when he took over and in fact we were days from being liquidated.

I have a fact Annis. The only time CCS has been full is under Tan and in red.

Debt is relative to what we can pay. When debt was 40 or 50 million including debt to HMRC we were in a far, far worse position than now with a billionaire looking after us. No matter what you say he is doing that.

Not quite true though.

1) the debt wasn't anywhere near as high as £40m or £50m when VT took over majority ownership.

2) CCFC is no longer being "looked after" by a billionaire. He remains a very wealthy man , but his wealth ( according to Forbes who monitor such things) is now around £700 m having lost over 25% of his wealth between 2014 and 2015.

3) The main debt would have been to Langston and was repayable over a number of years. The debt due to VT is repayable immediately on demand. The debt due to HMRC would have had to be dealt with in any case as the League no longer allows clubs to owe HMRC arrears - they have to report monthly on this.

4) VT is not the only remaining substantial creditor. Mehmet Dalman and his fellow consortium members are owed over £10m

So what was the debt then?

This says differently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-sout ... s-21198131

Besides when Tan took us over we had zero income stream as it had all been sold by Ridsdale.

Maybe it is nothing more than business and it suits Mr Tan to have a business losing money to offset other profitable businesses. Maybe there's nothing emotional about it for the owner, just there's a bigger picture than CCFC.

Maybe Keith could answer if that is possible for tax purposes ? Is the money borrowed to the club from tan personaly or through a company?

Firstly , I am not a tax accountant - never have been and never will be- so not my area of expertise.

What I do know is that,while in the past some of the loans were in the names of offshore companies apparently owned by Mr Tan, the only loans now registered at Companies House are in his personal name.

It was actually 2013 that Tan first mentioned rebrand.

Question,? does it actually matter at this time if debt is not swapped? as far as i can see wont make one jot difference to way club is run if anything more cutbacks likely as not to build up large debts again! so what difference will it makeif he does it now or in 3yrs? i suggest none

It was actually 2013 that Tan first mentioned rebrand.

What was the debt level then in 2013 if this is when it was mentioned but I thought it was the end of 2012 season after the west ham game is was rummoured

Maybe it is nothing more than business and it suits Mr Tan to have a business losing money to offset other profitable businesses. Maybe there's nothing emotional about it for the owner, just there's a bigger picture than CCFC.

Maybe Keith could answer if that is possible for tax purposes ? Is the money borrowed to the club from tan personaly or through a company?

Firstly , I am not a tax accountant - never have been and never will be- so not my area of expertise.

What I do know is that,while in the past some of the loans were in the names of offshore companies apparently owned by Mr Tan, the only loans now registered at Companies House are in his personal name.

thanks for the reply so tan personaly is owed the money not a faceless company like Langston

It was actually 2013 that Tan first mentioned rebrand.

Sorry I'm a biff. Debt to equity was first mentioned in 2013.

It was actually 2013 that Tan first mentioned rebrand.

What was the debt level then in 2013 if this is when it was mentioned but I thought it was the end of 2012 season after the west ham game is was rummoured

I'm a biff meant debt to equity not rebrand first mentioned in 2013.

Maybe it is nothing more than business and it suits Mr Tan to have a business losing money to offset other profitable businesses. Maybe there's nothing emotional about it for the owner, just there's a bigger picture than CCFC.

Maybe Keith could answer if that is possible for tax purposes ? Is the money borrowed to the club from tan personaly or through a company?

Firstly , I am not a tax accountant - never have been and never will be- so not my area of expertise.

What I do know is that,while in the past some of the loans were in the names of offshore companies apparently owned by Mr Tan, the only loans now registered at Companies House are in his personal name.

thanks for the reply so tan personaly is owed the money not a faceless company like Langston

Which surely is the same thing as debt to equity?

Unlike before Tan took over where we owed money to every fecker but most importantly the one institution who could liquidate us and would have done had we not received millions from Tan.

Question,? does it actually matter at this time if debt is not swapped? as far as i can see wont make one jot difference to way club is run if anything more cutbacks likely as not to build up large debts again! so what difference will it makeif he does it now or in 3yrs? i suggest none

It makes a huge difference.

For starters we would not be paying interest on his shares like we are on these loans. I'm not sure what the rate is but on £100M even at 5% over 3 years is serious money.

Question,? does it actually matter at this time if debt is not swapped? as far as i can see wont make one jot difference to way club is run if anything more cutbacks likely as not to build up large debts again! so what difference will it makeif he does it now or in 3yrs? i suggest none

It makes a huge difference.

For starters we would not be paying interest on his shares like we are on these loans. I'm not sure what the rate is but on £100M even at 5% over 3 years is serious money.

intrest ? Cardiff city have never paid intrest to tan it's always written off

Question,? does it actually matter at this time if debt is not swapped? as far as i can see wont make one jot difference to way club is run if anything more cutbacks likely as not to build up large debts again! so what difference will it makeif he does it now or in 3yrs? i suggest none

It makes a huge difference.

For starters we would not be paying interest on his shares like we are on these loans. I'm not sure what the rate is but on £100M even at 5% over 3 years is serious money.

Unlike other owners/chairmen who took a wage and interest on loans Tan has done neither.

Ffs you are a bright and switched on man Ian but blinded by hatred for Tan.

Question,? does it actually matter at this time if debt is not swapped? as far as i can see wont make one jot difference to way club is run if anything more cutbacks likely as not to build up large debts again! so what difference will it makeif he does it now or in 3yrs? i suggest none

It makes a huge difference.

For starters we would not be paying interest on his shares like we are on these loans. I'm not sure what the rate is but on £100M even at 5% over 3 years is serious money.

Unlike other owners/chairmen who took a wage and interest on loans Tan has done neither.

Ffs you are a bright and switched on man Ian but blinded by hatred for Tan.

Never said he took a wage. you telling me all the loans are interest free?

Maybe it is nothing more than business and it suits Mr Tan to have a business losing money to offset other profitable businesses. Maybe there's nothing emotional about it for the owner, just there's a bigger picture than CCFC.

Maybe Keith could answer if that is possible for tax purposes ? Is the money borrowed to the club from tan personaly or through a company?

Firstly , I am not a tax accountant - never have been and never will be- so not my area of expertise.

What I do know is that,while in the past some of the loans were in the names of offshore companies apparently owned by Mr Tan, the only loans now registered at Companies House are in his personal name.

thanks for the reply so tan personaly is owed the money not a faceless company like Langston

Which surely is the same thing as debt to equity?

Unlike before Tan took over where we owed money to every fecker but most importantly the one institution who could liquidate us and would have done had we not received millions from Tan.

Not the same thing at all.

Debt is repayable by the club - in this case on demand. Equity is not repayable .

I agree with you on one important point though and that is regarding HMRC's stance with the club . They had become totally disbelieving of anything Peter Ridsdale told or promised them and would certainly have proceeded with a winding up order against the club if the directors had not put in place an Administration Order to protect against this ( if properly advised they would have done so). Vincent Tan and TG's initial investment of around £6m removed the short term threat of either .

What has gone badly wrong since then have been some ridiculously bad business decisions which have cost the club literally tens of millions of £ . Some bad decisions were instigated by middle management and some by the owner but all have a common denominator - all were approved/ sanctioned by the owner himself so no good ultimately blaming anyone else.

Question,? does it actually matter at this time if debt is not swapped? as far as i can see wont make one jot difference to way club is run if anything more cutbacks likely as not to build up large debts again! so what difference will it makeif he does it now or in 3yrs? i suggest none

It makes a huge difference.

For starters we would not be paying interest on his shares like we are on these loans. I'm not sure what the rate is but on £100M even at 5% over 3 years is serious money.

intrest ? Cardiff city have never paid intrest to tan it's always written off

Show me where Wez.

I know he gave a £6M loan with free interest and later wrote it off.

What about the remaining lot?

Question,? does it actually matter at this time if debt is not swapped? as far as i can see wont make one jot difference to way club is run if anything more cutbacks likely as not to build up large debts again! so what difference will it makeif he does it now or in 3yrs? i suggest none

It makes a huge difference.

For starters we would not be paying interest on his shares like we are on these loans. I'm not sure what the rate is but on £100M even at 5% over 3 years is serious money.

Unlike other owners/chairmen who took a wage and interest on loans Tan has done neither.

Ffs you are a bright and switched on man Ian but blinded by hatred for Tan.

Never said he took a wage. you telling me all the loans are interest free?

He hasn't charged interest on anything yet. Has wiped considerable amounts saving the club considerable money.

He has also paid off various companies who the club owed considerable sums to that were accruing considerable interest.

Maybe it is nothing more than business and it suits Mr Tan to have a business losing money to offset other profitable businesses. Maybe there's nothing emotional about it for the owner, just there's a bigger picture than CCFC.

Maybe Keith could answer if that is possible for tax purposes ? Is the money borrowed to the club from tan personaly or through a company?

Firstly , I am not a tax accountant - never have been and never will be- so not my area of expertise.

What I do know is that,while in the past some of the loans were in the names of offshore companies apparently owned by Mr Tan, the only loans now registered at Companies House are in his personal name.

thanks for the reply so tan personaly is owed the money not a faceless company like Langston

Which surely is the same thing as debt to equity?

Unlike before Tan took over where we owed money to every fecker but most importantly the one institution who could liquidate us and would have done had we not received millions from Tan.

Not the same thing at all.

Debt is repayable by the club - in this case on demand. Equity is not repayable .

I agree with you on one important point though and that is regarding HMRC's stance with the club . They had become totally disbelieving of anything Peter Ridsdale told or promised them and would certainly have proceeded with a winding up order against the club if the directors had not put in place an Administration Order to protect against this ( if properly advised they would have done so). Vincent Tan and TG's initial investment of around £6m removed the short term threat of either .

What has gone badly wrong since then have been some ridiculously bad business decisions which have cost the club literally tens of millions of £ . Some bad decisions were instigated by middle management and some by the owner but all have a common denominator - all were approved/ sanctioned by the owner himself so no good ultimately blaming anyone else.

This is a quote from you.

Mr Morgan, of the Supporters Trust, said his greatest fear was that the club owed more than it could afford to repay.

This was the case well before Tan took over which is why a high court judge said without investment we would be liquidated as we had no income stream.

Question,? does it actually matter at this time if debt is not swapped? as far as i can see wont make one jot difference to way club is run if anything more cutbacks likely as not to build up large debts again! so what difference will it makeif he does it now or in 3yrs? i suggest none

It makes a huge difference.

For starters we would not be paying interest on his shares like we are on these loans. I'm not sure what the rate is but on £100M even at 5% over 3 years is serious money.

Unlike other owners/chairmen who took a wage and interest on loans Tan has done neither.

Ffs you are a bright and switched on man Ian but blinded by hatred for Tan.

Never said he took a wage. you telling me all the loans are interest free?

He hasn't charged interest on anything yet. Has wiped considerable amounts saving the club considerable money.

He has also paid off various companies who the club owed considerable sums to that were accruing considerable interest.

There is still a rate charge which he writes off ATM. Lets say he moves on leaving the loans on place. Do you think he will then drop the interest?

By converting it all to equity that threat would disappear overnight.

Question,? does it actually matter at this time if debt is not swapped? as far as i can see wont make one jot difference to way club is run if anything more cutbacks likely as not to build up large debts again! so what difference will it makeif he does it now or in 3yrs? i suggest none

It makes a huge difference.

For starters we would not be paying interest on his shares like we are on these loans. I'm not sure what the rate is but on £100M even at 5% over 3 years is serious money.

Unlike other owners/chairmen who took a wage and interest on loans Tan has done neither.

Ffs you are a bright and switched on man Ian but blinded by hatred for Tan.

Never said he took a wage. you telling me all the loans are interest free?

He hasn't charged interest on anything yet. Has wiped considerable amounts saving the club considerable money.

He has also paid off various companies who the club owed considerable sums to that were accruing considerable interest.

There is still a rate charge which he writes off ATM. Lets say he moves on leaving the loans on place. Do you think he will then drop the interest?

By converting it all to equity that threat would disappear overnight.

But he's not going to do it nor do I expect him too. At least he is trying to make us self sufficient. Although we moan at that as want more players.

Question,? does it actually matter at this time if debt is not swapped? as far as i can see wont make one jot difference to way club is run if anything more cutbacks likely as not to build up large debts again! so what difference will it makeif he does it now or in 3yrs? i suggest none

It makes a huge difference.

For starters we would not be paying interest on his shares like we are on these loans. I'm not sure what the rate is but on £100M even at 5% over 3 years is serious money.

Unlike other owners/chairmen who took a wage and interest on loans Tan has done neither.

Ffs you are a bright and switched on man Ian but blinded by hatred for Tan.

Never said he took a wage. you telling me all the loans are interest free?

He hasn't charged interest on anything yet. Has wiped considerable amounts saving the club considerable money.

He has also paid off various companies who the club owed considerable sums to that were accruing considerable interest.

There is still a rate charge which he writes off ATM. Lets say he moves on leaving the loans on place. Do you think he will then drop the interest?

By converting it all to equity that threat would disappear overnight.

But he's not going to do it nor do I expect him too. At least he is trying to make us self sufficient. Although we moan at that as want more players.

I know he is not going to do it...I have always felt that from the beginning.

Personally I don't give a damn if he brings more players in or not. It would not bother me if he ordered Slade to bring in the academy players to play. Whatever it takes for him to uproot and go is fine by me.

Question,? does it actually matter at this time if debt is not swapped? as far as i can see wont make one jot difference to way club is run if anything more cutbacks likely as not to build up large debts again! so what difference will it makeif he does it now or in 3yrs? i suggest none

It makes a huge difference.

For starters we would not be paying interest on his shares like we are on these loans. I'm not sure what the rate is but on £100M even at 5% over 3 years is serious money.

Unlike other owners/chairmen who took a wage and interest on loans Tan has done neither.

Ffs you are a bright and switched on man Ian but blinded by hatred for Tan.

Never said he took a wage. you telling me all the loans are interest free?

He hasn't charged interest on anything yet. Has wiped considerable amounts saving the club considerable money.

He has also paid off various companies who the club owed considerable sums to that were accruing considerable interest.

There is still a rate charge which he writes off ATM. Lets say he moves on leaving the loans on place. Do you think he will then drop the interest?

By converting it all to equity that threat would disappear overnight.

But he's not going to do it nor do I expect him too. At least he is trying to make us self sufficient. Although we moan at that as want more players.

I know he is not going to do it...I have always felt that from the beginning.

Personally I don't give a damn if he brings more players in or not. It would not bother me if he ordered Slade to bring in the academy players to play. Whatever it takes for him to uproot and go is fine by me.

You might not but many would then drip on about lack of ambition blah blah.

Question,? does it actually matter at this time if debt is not swapped? as far as i can see wont make one jot difference to way club is run if anything more cutbacks likely as not to build up large debts again! so what difference will it makeif he does it now or in 3yrs? i suggest none

It makes a huge difference.

For starters we would not be paying interest on his shares like we are on these loans. I'm not sure what the rate is but on £100M even at 5% over 3 years is serious money.

intrest ? Cardiff city have never paid intrest to tan it's always written off

Show me where Wez.

I know he gave a £6M loan with free interest and later wrote it off.

What about the remaining lot?

its common knowledge and in every set of accounts over the last few years no intrest has currently been paid to tan or any companies of his for any of his investment

Question,? does it actually matter at this time if debt is not swapped? as far as i can see wont make one jot difference to way club is run if anything more cutbacks likely as not to build up large debts again! so what difference will it makeif he does it now or in 3yrs? i suggest none

It makes a huge difference.

For starters we would not be paying interest on his shares like we are on these loans. I'm not sure what the rate is but on £100M even at 5% over 3 years is serious money.

intrest ? Cardiff city have never paid intrest to tan it's always written off

Show me where Wez.

I know he gave a £6M loan with free interest and later wrote it off.

What about the remaining lot?

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... OsEWJ3pT0w

Question,? does it actually matter at this time if debt is not swapped? as far as i can see wont make one jot difference to way club is run if anything more cutbacks likely as not to build up large debts again! so what difference will it makeif he does it now or in 3yrs? i suggest none

I can't see what the difference is in reality either....

Tan owns the club and the club owe Tan far more than the clubs worth....

If he adds interest, he is just messing with the balance sheet, but there'll be no real difference.

We'll never pay the debt off, Tan will lose money either way.

If he wrote it off today and sold it for 30 million he'd still lose money, t if he found a buyer one of the conditions would be we'll give you £30 million and you write off the remaining debt......

The best way to find a buyer is having it run like a proper championship club. Maybe a championship club is not the correct model as most of the foreign owners throw money at it for a few season then sulk when its not the pot of honey they thought it may be.