Keith is saying that MM will only have £5 million to spend

Yet here YOU are turning a rumour into fact.

Had he posted that we might have 20m to spend, you'd never have started the thread.

Says tafyplastic the guy who sucked the malaysians off for the last two years, only for a rebrand to change his mind now he hates them

don't think thats enough to get out of this league IMO.

Can I make it quite clear what I actually said , rather than any interpretaion of it.

The recent statement by VT said that £35m had been set aside to cover the cash requirements for next season , including a sum of £10m to pay Langston , leaving £25m

What I said to the press was that , if the same £20m of cash that was used to fund the club between May 2011 and now (the debt due to VT having gone up from £14.8m to £34.8m as stated by VT) was required to cover similar running costs , that would only leave £5m for a transfer kitty.

As Tim (Lawnmower) has pointed out in this thread, some of last year`s £20m may have been used to pay non-recurring items like old debt repayments . However , next year`s will also have to include repaying PMG whose £7m debt as at 31 May 2011 has to be paid off by May 2013.

So it is not clear exactly how much will be left for a transfer kitty. I didn`t claim it was , just did the calculation based on the information VT himself produced.

Keith

Thanks Keith for your comments on this. There was no intention on my part to take any of your comments from the paper out of context I can assure you

I haven't seen it so couldn't possible know.

My point about liar was that you complained about such comment yet clearly lied about not being midfield general or Adam brown?

That is a good point but IMO Angry Man is guiltier of Double Standards than anything else.

Using the word 'liar' to describe any kind of discrepancy is much abused on this MB; and any MB if we are going to being honest.

There can be all kinds of reasons for discrepancies other than trying to 'decisive' the true context of lying.

I sort of agree with Angry Man if an accusation of lying is made then support it with evidence. On the other hand if you are accused of lying then refute the allegation and the best way of doing that is again to producing evidence.

Personally I’m sick of good threads being ruined by the posters personalities getting dragged into the argument.

For example in this thread you either agree with Keith Morgan’s point of view or you don’t. Whatever Gwyn or AM have said in the past really doesn’t have any bearing.

Agree with you on this part of your point Tony. At the moment more or less every post or thread which I have contributed too has been hijacked by Gwyn with allegations which he doesn't have any proof of and to me its damaging the forum as a whole. Yes I admit that I react but I'm sure that if anyone was accused of anything in life then they should have a .right of reply'.

1 would not trust him with 5 pounds could cardiff please send some one shopping with him no more cowie and millers

Yet here YOU are turning a rumour into fact.

Had he posted that we might have 20m to spend, you'd never have started the thread.

Says tafyplastic the guy who sucked the malaysians off for the last two years, only for a rebrand to change his mind now he hates them

Its part of growing up and becoming a man, admitting you were wrong.

I got no problem with that.

Hope that clarifies for both you special needs posters

In Taffys defence he always said "Theyve done nothing yet to make me believe they cannot be trusted".

At least hes held his hands up now they have let him down.

Unlike Angrynan who has been proved wrong over and over again on here but is so thick and or pig headed to accept it.

don't think thats enough to get out of this league IMO.

Can I make it quite clear what I actually said , rather than any interpretaion of it.

The recent statement by VT said that £35m had been set aside to cover the cash requirements for next season , including a sum of £10m to pay Langston , leaving £25m

What I said to the press was that , if the same £20m of cash that was used to fund the club between May 2011 and now (the debt due to VT having gone up from £14.8m to £34.8m as stated by VT) was required to cover similar running costs , that would only leave £5m for a transfer kitty.

As Tim (Lawnmower) has pointed out in this thread, some of last year`s £20m may have been used to pay non-recurring items like old debt repayments . However , next year`s will also have to include repaying PMG whose £7m debt as at 31 May 2011 has to be paid off by May 2013.

So it is not clear exactly how much will be left for a transfer kitty. I didn`t claim it was , just did the calculation based on the information VT himself produced.

Keith

Just out of interest I remember you telling me that the accounts which were published in Feb 2011 were complied in December 2010.

It was those accounts which first gave us the £14.8m loan figure. 2 days ago VT revealled the amount was now £34.8m an increase of £20m.

However, if the accounts were complied in December 2010 that £20m would be spread over an 18 month period (Dec 10 - June 12) and not 12 months?

Further if you divide 20/18 you get £1.1m which is the widley reported figure that the Malaysians are supposed to be subsidising the club to the tune of every month?

Tony

I have never said any such thing. It was YOU who posted these incorrect dates and the 18 month period rubbish on another post on this board , which will be clearly there for anyone to see (unless of course the editors and deleters have been out in force again).

How the hell can figures for Feb 2011 (not sure where you get that date from anyway as the figures are made up to 31 May each year) be compiled (which is what I think you meant by "complied") 2 months before the period actually ends?.That`s why I made the reference to Mystic Meg in my first response to you!

As I pointed out in response to your other post in the other thread , the 31 May 2011 figures were signed off as approved in December 2011 and published in Feb 2012. But the sign off and publication dates are irrelevant to your argument anyway. The accounts were for the period to the end of May 2011 and showed loans from VT of £14.8m. By early June 2012 VT himself says this has gone up to £34.8m , so quite clearly an increase of £20m over 12 months. Why do you think end May 2011 to early June 2012 is 18 months?

Tony

Have you had time to find your earlier post yet to be able to agree that all the dates and time periods you stated were wrong?

Keith the quicker you realise tony has no idea what hes talking then he may stop following you about then, hence why i do not even bother to his posts been there done that