THE BUDGET FOR MALKY ?

Carl, alot of people are talking about saving money from interest payments when the debt is paid off, but how I see it is, if a settlement figure of 10 mil has been agreed for Sam, ray gets paid only through player sales and PMG have their area of the stadium, there's not much interest being paid on these debts anyway? So we aren't going to make much of an annual saving after these debts and one day finalised? Is that correct??

Once the deal, or if, is settled with Langston then VT will turn the loans to equity therefore leaving e club debt free.

Ranson is paid via player transfers, so no cost to the club so to speak.

PMG will be paid by the end of 2013 via premier seat payments.

I am not assuming, I am reading he statements and actually listening to what is being said in the meetings.

Of all this time I have been accused of being anti-Malaysian or having an agenda, it's amazing when you think about who has claimed as much about me yet some of these same people seem to be running the propaganda many believe but the proof is in the pudding.

Err, ok

You clearly feel there will be no additional costs next year over and above day to day running costs, and they won't rise above last year, given your figures. An opinion you're entitled to but one I personally feel is more than a little optimistic.

The bottom line remains though that last season you were given a loan of £20m to keep you ticking over and next season it's a £25m loan with no mention of what happens beyond the end of next season and no mention in the statement about turning those loans into equity.

Good luck.

Ok so we will have £35million invested to see us through to May 2013, out of this £35million a sum of £10million has been set aside for settling Langston.

That leaves £25million.

The club generates approximately £20million per season, add this to the £25million from above and we have total of £45million.

Last season we were operating losses of approximately £1.2million per month, meaning we were losing approximately £15million per annum, plus the wages were around the same figure of £15million, so £30million to be taken from the £45million.

So my reckoning is the budget we have to spend on players would be approximately £15million.

All this is my take on the matter, think it is right but maybe others can prove different.

Even if I have not got to the figure the correct way, it certainly ties in with the figure I have been told over the past 4 weeks that the manager would have to spend.

Carl, If I may.....

...You needed a loan last year of £20m to keep you running even with the clubs own income streams. Assuming that level is required again next season you have £35m - £20m = £15m. Of this £15m, £10m is set aside for Hammam so £15m- £10m = £5m for new signings inc transfer/agent fees and wages.

Mistake #1 - you have increased the deficit from 15m to 20m = add 5m to your figure
Mistake #2 - you neglected the 20m 'normal income' less the wage bill of 15m = add 5m to your figure

Overall add 10m to your 5m and you get 15m, as carl stated in the first place. QED

The figures show the amount owed in loans to VT has gone up £20m since roughly this time last year so my figure there is correct.

And as for your 2nd point, your "normal income" is already taken into account with the loss of £20m so you're double counting.

But you are assuming the £20m was used for day to day running costs.

To an extent yes, but you're assuming that there will be no additional costs on top of day to day running costs next season. Look at the work that is apparently now being done at the stadium turning things from blue to red, that is a cost for instance.

I am not assuming, I am reading he statements and actually listening to what is being said in the meetings.

Of all this time I have been accused of being anti-Malaysian or having an agenda, it's amazing when you think about who has claimed as much about me yet some of these same people seem to be running the propaganda many believe but the proof is in the pudding.[/quote]

As you suggest time will tell and I'm sure the accounts are a lot more complex than the few headline figures you've used. I must admit whilst I tried to bluff, NJ's initial interpretation was correct to a point (loan was still 15m not 20m) but certainly not 15m budget left over. Who cares though and lets just see who we sign

Carl, alot of people are talking about saving money from interest payments when the debt is paid off, but how I see it is, if a settlement figure of 10 mil has been agreed for Sam, ray gets paid only through player sales and PMG have their area of the stadium, there's not much interest being paid on these debts anyway? So we aren't going to make much of an annual saving after these debts and one day finalised? Is that correct??

Once the deal, or if, is settled with Langston then VT will turn the loans to equity therefore leaving e club debt free.

Ranson is paid via player transfers, so no cost to the club so to speak.

PMG will be paid by the end of 2013 via premier seat payments.

But the clubs running costs won't be all that effected? I mean it's not like the club are making repayments to anyone at the moment is it?

and that's leads us nicely onto the next point, the rebranding, Tan obviously plans to increase revenue through the Asian market in the way only he knows how, he's a proven successful businessman in Asia, its a huge market, if he could somehow generate a million pounds a month from it the club would be debt free due to the transfer of equity and breaking even through the increase in revenue. The future could indeed be bright.

Last edited by Gavin on Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I am not assuming, I am reading he statements and actually listening to what is being said in the meetings.

Of all this time I have been accused of being anti-Malaysian or having an agenda, it's amazing when you think about who has claimed as much about me yet some of these same people seem to be running the propaganda many believe but the proof is in the pudding.

Err, ok

You clearly feel there will be no additional costs next year over and above day to day running costs, and they won't rise above last year, given your figures. An opinion you're entitled to but one I personally feel is more than a little optimistic.

The bottom line remains though that last season you were given a loan of £20m to keep you ticking over and next season it's a £25m loan with no mention of what happens beyond the end of next season and no mention in the statement about turning those loans into equity.

Good luck.

Excuse my optimism

£20m wasn't to keep us ticking over though was it ?

And you must have missed last weeks official statement which included this little snippet :

Subject to resolution of the Langston issue, work will also continue in earnest to improve the balance sheet by driving new revenue streams, attracting new investment and converting existing debt to equity.

The point of money buying yourself promotion out of this league you have to use it wisely and bring in the right players.
People will use Leicester for example. But they brought in Drinkwater, Fernandes, Beckford who I think were all poor last season.

I am not assuming, I am reading he statements and actually listening to what is being said in the meetings.

Of all this time I have been accused of being anti-Malaysian or having an agenda, it's amazing when you think about who has claimed as much about me yet some of these same people seem to be running the propaganda many believe but the proof is in the pudding.

Err, ok

You clearly feel there will be no additional costs next year over and above day to day running costs, and they won't rise above last year, given your figures. An opinion you're entitled to but one I personally feel is more than a little optimistic.

The bottom line remains though that last season you were given a loan of £20m to keep you ticking over and next season it's a £25m loan with no mention of what happens beyond the end of next season and no mention in the statement about turning those loans into equity.

Good luck.

Excuse my optimism

£20m wasn't to keep us ticking over though was it ?

And you must have missed last weeks official statement which included this little snippet :

Subject to resolution of the Langston issue, work will also continue in earnest to improve the balance sheet by driving new revenue streams, attracting new investment and converting existing debt to equity.

Indeed I did see it. It was glaringly missing from today's statement wouldn't you say? And that statement you quote also fails to include the word "all" when referring to converting debt to equity.

Carl, alot of people are talking about saving money from interest payments when the debt is paid off, but how I see it is, if a settlement figure of 10 mil has been agreed for Sam, ray gets paid only through player sales and PMG have their area of the stadium, there's not much interest being paid on these debts anyway? So we aren't going to make much of an annual saving after these debts and one day finalised? Is that correct??

Once the deal, or if, is settled with Langston then VT will turn the loans to equity therefore leaving e club debt free.

Ranson is paid via player transfers, so no cost to the club so to speak.

PMG will be paid by the end of 2013 via premier seat payments.

But the clubs running costs won't be all that effected? I mean it's not like the club are making repayments to anyone at the moment is it?

and that's leads us nicely onto the next point, the rebranding, Tan obviously plans to increase revenue through the Asian market in the way he knows how, he's a proven successful businessman in Asia, its a huge market, if he could somehow generate a million pounds a month from it the club would be debt free due to the transfer of equity and breaking even through the increase in revenue. The future could indeed be bright.

True the interest payments are not a cash outflow, merely an accounting entry that adds to the debt. The debt level doesn't matter as long as the Malaysians continue, whilst they know already that they won't get their money back unless we are successful. Seems their best interests will match ours.

I trust MM a lot more than DJ as well to buy players who can become assets to the club short and long term

Based on what proof?

Chopra was bought by dj as was Johnson, loovens. Made some cash off them. Only player mm has bought we could profit on thus far is turner.

I trust MM a lot more than DJ as well to buy players who can become assets to the club short and long term

Based on what proof?

Chopra was bought by dj as was Johnson, loovens. Made some cash off them. Only player mm has bought we could profit on thus far is turner.

What about all the free transfers? Joe Mason?

I agree that Dave Jones is completely proven on a low transfer budget but to suggest that Malky hasn't provided us with several assets is a bit unfair.

Ok so we will have £35million invested to see us through to May 2013, out of this £35million a sum of £10million has been set aside for settling Langston.

That leaves £25million.

The club generates approximately £20million per season, add this to the £25million from above and we have total of £45million.

Last season we were operating losses of approximately £1.2million per month, meaning we were losing approximately £15million per annum, plus the wages were around the same figure of £15million, so £30million to be taken from the £45million.

So my reckoning is the budget we have to spend on players would be approximately £15million.

All this is my take on the matter, think it is right but maybe others can prove different.

Even if I have not got to the figure the correct way, it certainly ties in with the figure I have been told over the past 4 weeks that the manager would have to spend.

I would say you ain't too far off there bud. Decent bit of cash considering the foundations we currently have.

You could have the biggest war chest in the history of our club,but when you have a manager who quite frankly doesn't know his arse from his elbow when it comes to getting in quality signings,the amount of money is totally irrelevant

I trust MM a lot more than DJ as well to buy players who can become assets to the club short and long term

Based on what proof?

Chopra was bought by dj as was Johnson, loovens. Made some cash off them. Only player mm has bought we could profit on thus far is turner.

I was a huge jones fan and he made some excellent signings but also a number of poor signings for signings sake.
However other than Miller nearly everyone has improved in value....

Get some young players out of France. It's the solution for every decent club in the North East of England!

I am not assuming, I am reading he statements and actually listening to what is being said in the meetings.

Of all this time I have been accused of being anti-Malaysian or having an agenda, it's amazing when you think about who has claimed as much about me yet some of these same people seem to be running the propaganda many believe but the proof is in the pudding.

Err, ok

You clearly feel there will be no additional costs next year over and above day to day running costs, and they won't rise above last year, given your figures. An opinion you're entitled to but one I personally feel is more than a little optimistic.

The bottom line remains though that last season you were given a loan of £20m to keep you ticking over and next season it's a £25m loan with no mention of what happens beyond the end of next season and no mention in the statement about turning those loans into equity.

Good luck.

Excuse my optimism

£20m wasn't to keep us ticking over though was it ?

And you must have missed last weeks official statement which included this little snippet :

Subject to resolution of the Langston issue, work will also continue in earnest to improve the balance sheet by driving new revenue streams, attracting new investment and converting existing debt to equity.

Indeed I did see it. It was glaringly missing from today's statement wouldn't you say? And that statement you quote also fails to include the word "all" when referring to converting debt to equity.[/quot


One question for you why are you so interested in our finances? Just enjoy your second (And possibly last season) in the Premiership and let us worry about how our BILLIONAIRE Chairman is going to finance CARDIFF CITY

The point of money buying yourself promotion out of this league you have to use it wisely and bring in the right players.
People will use Leicester for example. But they brought in Drinkwater, Fernandes, Beckford who I think were all poor last season.

Your right they need to be careful..you can't buy yourself out of this league (QPR did , Newcastle & West ham already had strong squads) You cant throw money at this league..

Christ Carl no wonder Malky has'nt been able to buy anyone up to now.....when you tell them how much he has in his Arse pocket. Why did'nt you say he only had £2 million

What is the point when it is posted on forums like this, supporters need to keep their noses out of the running of the ciub, otherwise things like this will always leak out.

Wrong, I'm afraid Carl.

They give the total loans by the Malaysians as 34.8m. At may 2011 in published accounts that figure was 14.8m so monthly losses last year were 1.67m. This years cash injection loan of 25m is only 5m more than last years 20m so malky has 5m extra this year to spend.

The May 2011 accounts were complied in December 2010 and published in Feb 2011. So the difference between the 2 figures (34.8 - 14.8) i.e. £20m was for a period of 18 months not 12 (VT released the £34.8m figure yesterday).

That works out @ £1.1m for the period December 2010 to June 2012.

Wrong, I'm afraid Carl.

They give the total loans by the Malaysians as 34.8m. At may 2011 in published accounts that figure was 14.8m so monthly losses last year were 1.67m. This years cash injection loan of 25m is only 5m more than last years 20m so malky has 5m extra this year to spend.

The May 2011 accounts were complied in December 2010 and published in Feb 2011. So the difference between the 2 figures (34.8 - 14.8) i.e. £20m was for a period of 18 months not 12 (VT released the £34.8m figure yesterday).

That works out @ £1.1m for the period December 2010 to June 2012.

What??

The May 2011 accounts were signed off in December 2011 not December 2010 (the auditor was not Mystic Meg!) and were published in February 2012 not Feb 2011.

The time period between May 2011 which is the date the accounts are drawn up to and VT`s statement of yesterday is 12 months and 14 days not the 18 months you say.

So the extra loan injected of £20m were for a period of almost exactly 12 months.

Carl, alot of people are talking about saving money from interest payments when the debt is paid off, but how I see it is, if a settlement figure of 10 mil has been agreed for Sam, ray gets paid only through player sales and PMG have their area of the stadium, there's not much interest being paid on these debts anyway? So we aren't going to make much of an annual saving after these debts and one day finalised? Is that correct??

Once the deal, or if, is settled with Langston then VT will turn the loans to equity therefore leaving e club debt free.

Ranson is paid via player transfers, so no cost to the club so to speak.

PMG will be paid by the end of 2013 via premier seat payments.

cARL

There is no way that PMG will be paid via Premier seat payments by the end of 2013 (the club has actually said they will be paid by the end of May that year).

They are owed £7m and the Premier club only generates about £1m a season.

So part of the £35m earmarked to cover the net cash outflows for next season will also have to be allocated to pay that off , leaving less in the transfer kitty.

I don't believe for one minute it will be anywhere near that.

I don't believe for one minute it will be anywhere near that.

I do

I don't believe for one minute it will be anywhere near that.

I do

Unless we have payed 7million or there abouts for noone & maynard then i doubt its 15million

I don't believe for one minute it will be anywhere near that.

I do

Unless we have payed 7million or there abouts for noone & maynard then i doubt its 15million

I assume that includes wages.


Either that or we're going to spend another 7 on deadline day

I don't believe for one minute it will be anywhere near that.

I do

Unless we have payed 7million or there abouts for noone & maynard then i doubt its 15million

I assume that includes wages.


Either that or we're going to spend another 7 on deadline day

January?

I don't believe for one minute it will be anywhere near that.

I do

Unless we have payed 7million or there abouts for noone & maynard then i doubt its 15million

I assume that includes wages.


Either that or we're going to spend another 7 on deadline day

January?

If we have to spend 7 in January with the squad we have now I would be seriously worried!

I don't believe for one minute it will be anywhere near that.

I do

Unless we have payed 7million or there abouts for noone & maynard then i doubt its 15million

There is another transfer window in January