' 3 YEARS & STILL WAITING '

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

Keith.
I've just checked the accounts.
Tan took over around May 2010.

The debts then were

Within 1 year £26.9m
Over 1 year £36.7m
Over £60m total

Last edited by Lawnmower on Sun Nov 15, 2015 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's a mess
Fans are sick of it all more debt than ever no clear direction the feel good factor is gone the football is boring.
Who knows what will happen its always the way with city never changes.
We definitely need a lift paying the debt off would be just that but tan is untrustworthy which has left city in a perilous position

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

Keith.
I've just checked the accounts.
Tan took over around May 2010.

The debts then were

Within 1 year £26.9m
Over 1 year £36.7m
Over £60m total

I thought tan took over in 2012 tg was the one in 2010 ?

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.

do we pay interest?? as far as i know we have not payed any interest to him whatsoever even if he does charge ex% on loan,
at end day if you are right we will have debt of 200m can you honestly see that being case? and if swaps today how do we survive as club as we've negative income probably? so its not in his interest to swap at this particular time is it?
trouble is lots of crap posted about him not doing it up to now, but as i said earlier judge him when he leaves as believe he wont screw club like others have financially

It's a mess
Fans are sick of it all more debt than ever no clear direction the feel good factor is gone the football is boring.
Who knows what will happen its always the way with city never changes.
We definitely need a lift paying the debt off would be just that but tan is untrustworthy which has left city in a perilous position

Always something.

Change to blue and the crowds will come back. They didn't. Sort the badge the crowds will come back. They didn't. If Tan converts debt to equity it won't matter a f**k to the crowds. Winning football or the Premiership will do 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

Keith.
I've just checked the accounts.
Tan took over around May 2010.

The debts then were

Within 1 year £26.9m
Over 1 year £36.7m
Over £60m total

I thought tan took over in 2012 tg was the one in 2010 ?

we owed more than 26m to sam (depends who believe) when tan took over not to mention other debts worth many millions???? someones been cooking books!

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.

do we pay interest?? as far as i know we have not payed any interest to him whatsoever even if he does charge ex% on loan,
at end day if you are right we will have debt of 200m can you honestly see that being case? and if swaps today how do we survive as club as we've negative income probably? so its not in his interest to swap at this particular time is it?
trouble is lots of crap posted about him not doing it up to now, but as i said earlier judge him when he leaves as believe he wont screw club like others have financially

The accrued interest has mostly been written off or turned into shares.
He won't be able to pay the interest over at any time and charging it will just make hitting FFP targets even more difficult

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

Keith.
I've just checked the accounts.
Tan took over around May 2010.

The debts then were

Within 1 year £26.9m
Over 1 year £36.7m
Over £60m total

I thought tan took over in 2012 tg was the one in 2010 ?

TG was the face, but it was mainly Tans money and Tan who had most of the shares issued

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.

do we pay interest?? as far as i know we have not payed any interest to him whatsoever even if he does charge ex% on loan,
at end day if you are right we will have debt of 200m can you honestly see that being case? and if swaps today how do we survive as club as we've negative income probably? so its not in his interest to swap at this particular time is it?
trouble is lots of crap posted about him not doing it up to now, but as i said earlier judge him when he leaves as believe he wont screw club like others have financially

The accrued interest has mostly been written off or turned into shares.
He won't be able to pay the interest over at any time and charging it will just make hitting FFP targets even more difficult

at end day its what happens when he leaves that counts, no amount of bitching about tan not swapping debt matters until he leaves!

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.

Although I don't know what date you take that quote from , I am certain that indeed I would have said that as it has been my fear for a long time.

There were some ridiculous and bad business dealings within the club when Peter Ridsdale was in charge. To quote a High Court judge in his case he said his business conduct merited a ban from being a company director for 9 years.

I had hoped that the arrival of TG and VT would rid the club of such things and the club would be run prudently and properly. This did not prove to be the case however and many decisions taken were an even greater financial disaster. This left the club in an even more parlours position with debts having risen enormously .

Under Ken Choo ( who I am surprised is not a main board director) I think financial controls and policies have improved. My only concern with Ken is that a lot of his time is diverted away from the club to deal with other VT companies. I would like our CEO to focus 100% on CCFC matters.

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.

Tan hasn't taken a penny of that interest though and my guess is that will be written off

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.

Although I don't know what date you take that quote from , I am certain that indeed I would have said that as it has been my fear for a long time.

There were some ridiculous and bad business dealings within the club when Peter Ridsdale was in charge. To quote a High Court judge in his case he said his business conduct merited a ban from being a company director for 9 years.

I had hoped that the arrival of TG and VT would rid the club of such things and the club would be run prudently and properly. This did not prove to be the case however and many decisions taken were an even greater financial disaster. This left the club in an even more parlours position with debts having risen enormously .

Under Ken Choo ( who I am surprised is not a main board director) I think financial controls and policies have improved. My only concern with Ken is that a lot of his time is diverted away from the club to deal with other VT companies. I would like our CEO to focus 100% on CCFC matters.

In a way it shows the priority being placed on the club that Tan places us alongside his other businesses.

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

Keith.
I've just checked the accounts.
Tan took over around May 2010.

The debts then were

Within 1 year £26.9m
Over 1 year £36.7m
Over £60m total

Thanks Tim. I stand corrected. What was the net debt level at that time compared to now?

Not sure I have a copy of the accounts going back that far, but the debt repayable within one year was just under £27m according to your figures compared to over £130m by the end of May 2014 just four years later.

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.

Tan hasn't taken a penny of that interest though and my guess is that will be written off

Well lets hope your right.

But the question asked was does it matter if he swopped it to equity. My answer is yes it does matter for answers I gave above.

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

Keith.
I've just checked the accounts.
Tan took over around May 2010.

The debts then were

Within 1 year £26.9m
Over 1 year £36.7m
Over £60m total

Thanks Tim. I stand corrected. What was the net debt level at that time compared to now?

Not sure I have a copy of the accounts going back that far, but the debt repayable within one year was just under £27m according to your figures compared to over £130m by the end of May 2014 just four years later.

isn't the 130 million to tan tho not other companies who would want the cash straight away ?

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.

Tan hasn't taken a penny of that interest though and my guess is that will be written off

Well lets hope your right.

But the question asked was does it matter if he swopped it to equity. My answer is yes it does matter for answers I gave above.

The only answer you gave was interest which has been discounted so you have answered nothing really Ian.

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.

Tan hasn't taken a penny of that interest though and my guess is that will be written off

Well lets hope your right.

But the question asked was does it matter if he swopped it to equity. My answer is yes it does matter for answers I gave above.

The only answer you gave was interest which has been discounted so you have answered nothing really Ian.

I'll explain again just for you Neil.

Converting to equity takes away any interest threat be it if he goes or stays. I would not say that has been discounted at all.

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

Keith.
I've just checked the accounts.
Tan took over around May 2010.

The debts then were

Within 1 year £26.9m
Over 1 year £36.7m
Over £60m total

Thanks Tim. I stand corrected. What was the net debt level at that time compared to now?

Not sure I have a copy of the accounts going back that far, but the debt repayable within one year was just under £27m according to your figures compared to over £130m by the end of May 2014 just four years later.

No worries Keith.
I had to check as I've had this argument on here before and was worried I was going mad !
I think the net debt AFTER the share issue was about £4m, at the time there was a promise of a further share issue which was going to take us near to having a zero net debt .

Didn't take long for that optimism to be crushed

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.

Tan hasn't taken a penny of that interest though and my guess is that will be written off

Well lets hope your right.

But the question asked was does it matter if he swopped it to equity. My answer is yes it does matter for answers I gave above.

The only answer you gave was interest which has been discounted so you have answered nothing really Ian.

I'll explain again just for you Neil.

Converting to equity takes away any interest threat be it if he goes or stays. I would not say that has been discounted at all.

Like a politician. Still nothing new. He's not going to convert to equity but he also isn't going to charge us interest unless he loans the money to himself to pay himself the debt he is accountable for.

So we are still waiting then for the answer to Carl's question.

Bottom line is we was promised time after time on the debt to equity for RED yet never got it.

Some say but we are blue now but that's not why we went red or part of the debt to equity deal to start with even if we owe ten pence to whoever before tan I can't see how this avoids what was promised which was all the debt to equity for RED.

Most of this thread is who's owed what and how much.

I remember the spin well as it was in the media which come from the club's lips at the time.

All the debt if we go red.
Then we had when most of Sam's money is paid.
We then had when when we get promoted
When the malky situation is sorted.

There was more spin to in the media to but it's irrelevant now as we still don't have the outcome to what was promised.

Simple really.

So we are still waiting then for the answer to Carl's question.

Bottom line is we was promised time after time on the debt to equity for RED yet never got it.

Some say but we are blue now but that's not why we went red or part of the debt to equity deal to start with even if we owe ten pence to whoever before tan I can't see how this avoids what was promised which was all the debt to equity for RED.

Most of this thread is who's owed what and how much.

I remember the spin well as it was in the media which come from the club's lips at the time.

All the debt if we go red.
Then we had when most of Sam's money is paid.
We then had when when we get promoted
When the malky situation is sorted.

There was more spin to in the media to but it's irrelevant now as we still don't have the outcome to what was promised.

Simple really.

First time debt to equity was mentioned was a year after the rebrand. I think Tan wanted to do that if we were a Premiership club as the club is worth the money he would write off. As a championship club we aren't worth anywhere near it so he has been advised by Dalman and Choo not to. All the promises made for us to change to red have been fulfilled apart from training ground and that's because we are awaiting planning position.

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.

Tan hasn't taken a penny of that interest though and my guess is that will be written off

Well lets hope your right.

But the question asked was does it matter if he swopped it to equity. My answer is yes it does matter for answers I gave above.

The only answer you gave was interest which has been discounted so you have answered nothing really Ian.

I'll explain again just for you Neil.

Converting to equity takes away any interest threat be it if he goes or stays. I would not say that has been discounted at all.

Like a politician. Still nothing new. He's not going to convert to equity but he also isn't going to charge us interest unless he loans the money to himself to pay himself the debt he is accountable for.

Whatever Neil. I answered the question asked and gave a reason, a damn good reason.

This article is prudent to read I believe.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foot ... ee-9435493

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.

Is it Annis? We can view this several different ways.

The debt is there but it is 90% to one creditor the owner. That means there is no reason whatsoever why he should wind the club up to get his money back. If the debt was to an outsiders as in the Ridsdale era then we would have far more to worry about therefore in affect the club is debt free.

We will never see the levels of investment again that we saw when Tan first came in but as explained we have basically mug him for £150m.

We also now have an effective safety net as he can't let us go under.

Your correct about empty stadiums fed up fans etc. but that would have happened with or without Tan due to relegation from the Premier League. Just watch the Jacks over the next few years

More important is we are 7th in mid November well within striking distance of a play-off position or automatic promotion. We need to stop this petty fault finding and get behind our great team who now playing again in their rightful Blue.

If we were to go up this season it will eclipse 2013 by miles because;

1. We are playing in Blue
2. No-one expected it
and
3. We the few stuck by side when others didn't.

So we are still waiting then for the answer to Carl's question.

Bottom line is we was promised time after time on the debt to equity for RED yet never got it.

Some say but we are blue now but that's not why we went red or part of the debt to equity deal to start with even if we owe ten pence to whoever before tan I can't see how this avoids what was promised which was all the debt to equity for RED.

Most of this thread is who's owed what and how much.

I remember the spin well as it was in the media which come from the club's lips at the time.

All the debt if we go red.
Then we had when most of Sam's money is paid.
We then had when when we get promoted
When the malky situation is sorted.

There was more spin to in the media to but it's irrelevant now as we still don't have the outcome to what was promised.

Simple really.

You could argue there is a bit of spin on your summary of what happened. If your argument is based on a sort of breach of contract on Tan's behalf (he didn't convert debt to equity) then you have to consider our (the fans) behaviour and whether we honoured our end of the bargain.

Bluebirds United, Supporters Trust and the infamous 19 minutes 27 seconds chant of "We are Cardiff City we'll always be Blue" not to mention a poisonous personal campaign aimed at the owner, which reached its highest after promotion to the Premier League and most of the £100m had been spent. There was also a targeted campaign not to renew unless we played in Blue. All things considered due you really thing Tan is honour bound to keep to the terms of the original agreement when we clearly did-not?

For the record I think it all turned out brilliantly for us. We have an owner by the bollocks, are in affect debt free because most of what is owed is to him and we have benefited from investment in the stadium if nothing else.

Finally this argument is pointless as our efforts should be directed on supporting our team who despite everything have an excellent chance of being promoted.

So we are still waiting then for the answer to Carl's question.

Bottom line is we was promised time after time on the debt to equity for RED yet never got it.

Some say but we are blue now but that's not why we went red or part of the debt to equity deal to start with even if we owe ten pence to whoever before tan I can't see how this avoids what was promised which was all the debt to equity for RED.

Most of this thread is who's owed what and how much.

I remember the spin well as it was in the media which come from the club's lips at the time.

All the debt if we go red.
Then we had when most of Sam's money is paid.
We then had when when we get promoted
When the malky situation is sorted.

There was more spin to in the media to but it's irrelevant now as we still don't have the outcome to what was promised.

Simple really.

You could argue there is a bit of spin on your summary of what happened. If your argument is based on a sort of breach of contract on Tan's behalf (he didn't convert debt to equity) then you have to consider our (the fans) behaviour and whether we honoured our end of the bargain.

Bluebirds United, Supporters Trust and the infamous 19 minutes 27 seconds chant of "We are Cardiff City we'll always be Blue" not to mention a poisonous personal campaign aimed at the owner, which reached its highest after promotion to the Premier League and most of the £100m had been spent. There was also a targeted campaign not to renew unless we played in Blue. All things considered due you really thing Tan is honour bound to keep to the terms of the original agreement when we clearly did-not?

For the record I think it all turned out brilliantly for us. We have an owner by the bollocks, are in affect debt free because most of what is owed is to him and we have benefited from investment in the stadium if nothing else.

Finally this argument is pointless as our efforts should be directed on supporting our team who despite everything have an excellent chance of being promoted.

Agree

So we are still waiting then for the answer to Carl's question.

Bottom line is we was promised time after time on the debt to equity for RED yet never got it.

Some say but we are blue now but that's not why we went red or part of the debt to equity deal to start with even if we owe ten pence to whoever before tan I can't see how this avoids what was promised which was all the debt to equity for RED.

Most of this thread is who's owed what and how much.

I remember the spin well as it was in the media which come from the club's lips at the time.

All the debt if we go red.
Then we had when most of Sam's money is paid.
We then had when when we get promoted
When the malky situation is sorted.

There was more spin to in the media to but it's irrelevant now as we still don't have the outcome to what was promised.

Simple really.

You could argue there is a bit of spin on your summary of what happened. If your argument is based on a sort of breach of contract on Tan's behalf (he didn't convert debt to equity) then you have to consider our (the fans) behaviour and whether we honoured our end of the bargain.

Bluebirds United, Supporters Trust and the infamous 19 minutes 27 seconds chant of "We are Cardiff City we'll always be Blue" not to mention a poisonous personal campaign aimed at the owner, which reached its highest after promotion to the Premier League and most of the £100m had been spent. There was also a targeted campaign not to renew unless we played in Blue. All things considered due you really thing Tan is honour bound to keep to the terms of the original agreement when we clearly did-not?

For the record I think it all turned out brilliantly for us. We have an owner by the bollocks, are in affect debt free because most of what is owed is to him and we have benefited from investment in the stadium if nothing else.

Finally this argument is pointless as our efforts should be directed on supporting our team who despite everything have an excellent chance of being promoted.

Just a little bit of spin?

Completely blinded by personal feelings about Tan.

So we are still waiting then for the answer to Carl's question.

Bottom line is we was promised time after time on the debt to equity for RED yet never got it.

Some say but we are blue now but that's not why we went red or part of the debt to equity deal to start with even if we owe ten pence to whoever before tan I can't see how this avoids what was promised which was all the debt to equity for RED.

Most of this thread is who's owed what and how much.

I remember the spin well as it was in the media which come from the club's lips at the time.

All the debt if we go red.
Then we had when most of Sam's money is paid.
We then had when when we get promoted
When the malky situation is sorted.

There was more spin to in the media to but it's irrelevant now as we still don't have the outcome to what was promised.

Simple really.

You could argue there is a bit of spin on your summary of what happened. If your argument is based on a sort of breach of contract on Tan's behalf (he didn't convert debt to equity) then you have to consider our (the fans) behaviour and whether we honoured our end of the bargain.

Bluebirds United, Supporters Trust and the infamous 19 minutes 27 seconds chant of "We are Cardiff City we'll always be Blue" not to mention a poisonous personal campaign aimed at the owner, which reached its highest after promotion to the Premier League and most of the £100m had been spent. There was also a targeted campaign not to renew unless we played in Blue. All things considered due you really thing Tan is honour bound to keep to the terms of the original agreement when we clearly did-not?

For the record I think it all turned out brilliantly for us. We have an owner by the bollocks, are in affect debt free because most of what is owed is to him and we have benefited from investment in the stadium if nothing else.

Finally this argument is pointless as our efforts should be directed on supporting our team who despite everything have an excellent chance of being promoted.

Just a little bit of spin?

Completely blinded by personal feelings about Tan.

Sadly very true.

Just a shame fans couldn't get blinded by their feelings for CCFC and bloody well get on with supporting the club rather than dragging up petty vendettas

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

Keith.
I've just checked the accounts.
Tan took over around May 2010.

The debts then were

Within 1 year £26.9m
Over 1 year £36.7m
Over £60m total

Thanks Tim. I stand corrected. What was the net debt level at that time compared to now?

Not sure I have a copy of the accounts going back that far, but the debt repayable within one year was just under £27m according to your figures compared to over £130m by the end of May 2014 just four years later.

No worries Keith.
I had to check as I've had this argument on here before and was worried I was going mad !
I think the net debt AFTER the share issue was about £4m, at the time there was a promise of a further share issue which was going to take us near to having a zero net debt .

Didn't take long for that optimism to be crushed

The net debt of £4m was before the share issue.

There was one share issue in the year to 31 May 2011 but that was only £368k and , from memory , was largely a conversion of directors` loans into shares.

Then , at the end of July 2011 (following an EGM giving the power to allot new shares)there was a resolution passed which would have allowed another debt to equity conversion of £8.84m but only £900k of that conversion actually took place that year - to 31 May 2012. The same resolutions allowed for a total of over 204m shares of approx. value £32m to be issued up to 31 July 2016.

In the year to 31 May 2013 , a further debt to equity conversion under the above powers took place of £2m , plus a £200k new share issue.

Finally , in the year to 31 May 2014 there was another debt to equity conversion of £2.5m

In summary , of the £8.84m debt to equity conversion approved back in July 2011 , £5.4m had been taken up by 31 May 2014.

In the year to 31 May 2013

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

Keith.
I've just checked the accounts.
Tan took over around May 2010.

The debts then were

Within 1 year £26.9m
Over 1 year £36.7m
Over £60m total

Thanks Tim. I stand corrected. What was the net debt level at that time compared to now?

Not sure I have a copy of the accounts going back that far, but the debt repayable within one year was just under £27m according to your figures compared to over £130m by the end of May 2014 just four years later.

No worries Keith.
I had to check as I've had this argument on here before and was worried I was going mad !
I think the net debt AFTER the share issue was about £4m, at the time there was a promise of a further share issue which was going to take us near to having a zero net debt .

Didn't take long for that optimism to be crushed

The net debt of £4m was before the share issue.

There was one share issue in the year to 31 May 2011 but that was only £368k and , from memory , was largely a conversion of directors` loans into shares.

Then , at the end of July 2011 (following an EGM giving the power to allot new shares)there was a resolution passed which would have allowed another debt to equity conversion of £8.84m but only £900k of that conversion actually took place that year - to 31 May 2012. The same resolutions allowed for a total of over 204m shares of approx. value £32m to be issued up to 31 July 2016.

In the year to 31 May 2013 , a further debt to equity conversion under the above powers took place of £2m , plus a £200k new share issue.

Finally , in the year to 31 May 2014 there was another debt to equity conversion of £2.5m

In summary , of the £8.84m debt to equity conversion approved back in July 2011 , £5.4m had been taken up by 31 May 2014.

In the year to 31 May 2013

So there has been debt to equity conversion?