VINCENT TAN ANNOUNCES HIS BUSINESS PLAN

all well and good your points but can he sell assets?? like said is there a covenant on ground council didnt trust sam so there is something in place so been said from previous threads on here, sure you can enlighten me! usually do?

There STILL seems no reason why we can't play in blue.

There is one big obvious reason, the man that owns us, wants us to play in red, simple really.

and thats why I got NO RESPECT for this guy as he has NO RESPECT for us fans or for our club. Its selfish and ignorant...

I am certainly against the colour and badge change but not alienated in any way.
Still behind the club 100%

Behind our players, staff and club yes... behind the "owners" def. NO

Allegedly, he has told people his plan is to make Cardiff a successful Premier League club, with a bigger world class stadium.
With training facilities that are some of the best in the country and a youth academy that churns out Aaron Ramsey's by the bus load.

He wants the name Cardiff City to symbolise a link between a huge far Eastern area that is growing financially at a rate of knots and is begging out for links with the most successful sport and biggest league in the world, he wants to build on our Welsh heritage and national pride and bring to cultures closer together through our sporting links.

It is obvious to see that the U.K. for whatever reason is seen as a country that many others want to have links with, not just the far East, but the middle East and India, the investment and links between these countries and the U.K. appear to develop every day, is it because the U.K is seen as the old image of Stiff Upper Lip old school heritage that others with money want to buy into, many people want to be seen as accepted into the old boys network, why else do so many of these world wide Billionaires send their kids here to be educated. what we see as a mess in some respects, others see as culture and prestige.

Possibly when people like the Abramovich's and other billionaires get to the stage when making money get's to easy, they need the excitement and rush that simple money making business's just don't supply, possibly the kudos and competitive one up-manship that football brings.

It must be great to get simply bored of making money hand over fist, how much can one man spend, how many yachts and home s and planes do you need. Perhaps owning a football club is seen as a status symbol, sadly it seems that way and modern football with all the advertising and TV rights that go with it may be seen as spoiling the OLD GAME.

What I will say is that I live through the old game and had loads of great times, but loads of crap ones as well, if people still search for those old days, then they are still out there, go watch Merthyr live from month to month on a tight budget, but don't kid yourself that their players are playing for the badge or local loyalties, they are dreaming of advancing as far as they can and if you think any of them would turn down a ten grand a week wage to play in the League, then dream on.

As a fan I have spent all my life looking forward and any success whilst being enjoyed as simply stimulated me to want more and better, perhaps ambition and progress are part of life, I'm sure Man United fans are constantly striving for bigger and better every year, even though by many they are seen as to of the pile.

Now back to VT's business plan, make the club successful, enjoy the adulation and kudos and possibly sell it on in a few years time for a massive profit, sounds OK to me, if he's got the financial clout and backing to fund his vison, then that sounds like a plan to me.

So Gwyn, in a nutshell all you have really said in this post is VT wants to strengthen our link with the far east and to do that, we must get into the Premiership - we all already know this.

Then if we get to the Premiership, you say VT will then make plans to expand our stadium and improve our training facilities - we all already know this.

You then give your opinions on why you think billionaires want to get involved with UK businesses. You then give a bizarre opinion that for fans to once again experience "the old days", we must watch teams like Merthyr?

Basically Gwyn, you have typed out 8 paragraphs telling us nothing about the title "Vincent Tan announces his business plan?" as you have told us nothing we already know and you have just waffled on giving your opinions without any evidence to suggest VT actually has a business plan.

great business plan that, alienate your core support

I consider myself as much a fan as anyone else and don't feel alienated at all.I've noticed that forest and Watford are the latest clubs to be bought by foriegn investors-its just the way things are going.And I'll bet they'll do whatever it takes to maximise their revenue overseas.It would not surprise me at all to see a Premier 2 in the not to distant future.

Read a piece in the mirror a while ago about possibility of a premier 2-it was some sort of blueprint that would include celtic & rangers-we would have been included because of our support base & stadium capacity but the jacks would not due to their capacity being below 25k

gwyn can't tell us about any business plan because there isn't one, alan whiteley admitted it at the refund meeting, vt just wants his club playing in red and thats it, the club still continues to lose 1 million plus a month even though all our top earners have left the club nothing has changed except our colour and our badge apart from the fact we have lost our identity

Mr Coat, you are still making no sense with your examples.

Your key mistake of course is transfering this as a normal business purchase. Tan, once the equity is increased, has bought a £15 million business for £100 million. There is no ''doing it up to sell on''. There is NOTHING Tan or anyone can do to sell Cardiff City for over £100 million. Apart from of course turning us into a Champions League side, but in doing that cant spend a penny on the playing side from here on in. - not possible.

Now I urge you again to wake up as the only feasable way Tan will get his money back is by initially protecting his investment by becoming sole creditor, which he is about to do, and then selling the assets.

Now have a think about this instead of your pre-school infantile insults combined with some nonsense about buying a house.

Good lad.

Roath jack

Internet weirdo and business/finance expert extraordinaire strikes again.

So someone owes you £1. You then lend them £1million to ensure you get your £1 back and possibly a small part of the £1million?

You will go far.

Hit the road jack.

Mr Coat, you are still making no sense with your examples.

Your key mistake of course is transfering this as a normal business purchase. Tan, once the equity is increased, has bought a £15 million business for £100 million. There is no ''doing it up to sell on''. There is NOTHING Tan or anyone can do to sell Cardiff City for over £100 million. Apart from of course turning us into a Champions League side, but in doing that cant spend a penny on the playing side from here on in. - not possible.

Now I urge you again to wake up as the only feasable way Tan will get his money back is by initially protecting his investment by becoming sole creditor, which he is about to do, and then selling the assets.

Now have a think about this instead of your pre-school infantile insults combined with some nonsense about buying a house.

Good lad.

Roath jack

Internet weirdo and business/finance expert extraordinaire strikes again.

So someone owes you £1. You then lend them £1million to ensure you get your £1 back and possibly a small part of the £1million?

You will go far.

Hit the road jack.

Hi Mr Coat. Your example makes no sense... again.

First of all it is not applied to the situation and secondly the outcome is completely wrong. Tan wants to protect his initial £6 million investment plus £32 +7% million loan notes, which is £40+ million in total. Slightly more than a quid wouldnt you say? In order to protect this he is willing to temperarily release a further £15 million at least to rid the club of other creditiors, meaning he is the only one left and there is no threat of administration hanging over his investment.

So instead of losing £40 million and only being left with 40% of a club which is essentially worthless without him covering the shortfall, he can walk away with all his money back by selling assets he now legally owns. He tunred a smaller unsecured loa into a larger secured one, perfect business.

Id love to know what sense you see in 'the other' the nonsense plot. You know the one where he continues to pour in £15 to £18 million a year to keep us above water while miraculously turning us into a Champions League side and then still only being able to barely sell us for a profit. That still makes me smile even typing it, the fact people believe it however is more than a little disturbing.

Gwyn do us a favour and f**k off for 5 mins.

No need for that at all. Gwyn's a decent bloke. Always up for an honest discussion and a bit of banter. You should apologise.

So instead of losing £40 million and only being left with 40% of a club which is essentially worthless without him covering the shortfall, he can walk away with all his money back by selling assets he now legally owns. He tunred a smaller unsecured loa into a larger secured one, perfect business.

Ah,now I see where your trying to go with this.Only problem is,if it pans out like you say what assets could he sell to recoup his money?

players, real estate, whatever hes bought under the guise of investment like training ground etc, ticket money, Tv money. Loads of revenue streams he could get his hands on, unfortunately for us the funds are needed to pay other things. But it wont be his problem.

Mr Coat, you are still making no sense with your examples.

Your key mistake of course is transfering this as a normal business purchase. Tan, once the equity is increased, has bought a £15 million business for £100 million. There is no ''doing it up to sell on''. There is NOTHING Tan or anyone can do to sell Cardiff City for over £100 million. Apart from of course turning us into a Champions League side, but in doing that cant spend a penny on the playing side from here on in. - not possible.

Now I urge you again to wake up as the only feasable way Tan will get his money back is by initially protecting his investment by becoming sole creditor, which he is about to do, and then selling the assets.

Now have a think about this instead of your pre-school infantile insults combined with some nonsense about buying a house.

Good lad.

Roath jack

Internet weirdo and business/finance expert extraordinaire strikes again.

So someone owes you £1. You then lend them £1million to ensure you get your £1 back and possibly a small part of the £1million?

You will go far.

Hit the road jack.

Hi Mr Coat. Your example makes no sense... again.

First of all it is not applied to the situation and secondly the outcome is completely wrong. Tan wants to protect his initial £6 million investment plus £32 +7% million loan notes, which is £40+ million in total. Slightly more than a quid wouldnt you say? In order to protect this he is willing to temperarily release a further £15 million at least to rid the club of other creditiors, meaning he is the only one left and there is no threat of administration hanging over his investment.

So instead of losing £40 million and only being left with 40% of a club which is essentially worthless without him covering the shortfall, he can walk away with all his money back by selling assets he now legally owns. He tunred a smaller unsecured loa into a larger secured one, perfect business.

Id love to know what sense you see in 'the other' the nonsense plot. You know the one where he continues to pour in £15 to £18 million a year to keep us above water while miraculously turning us into a Champions League side and then still only being able to barely sell us for a profit. That still makes me smile even typing it, the fact people believe it however is more than a little disturbing.

Jerk,

Fantasy Island.

Why bother putting up any money in the first place?
TG and Mr Tan could have pulled out before our last play-off final at the point where the level of investment was relatively low.
They could have pulled out at subsequent points.
They have kept investing.
They are serious about what they are doing.
They know what they are doing.

you really are a prize specimen.
When I suggest you seek help. I genuinely mean it.

There you are. A jack with a computer keyboard and screen.
Posing as a Cardiff City fan.
Rumbled very quickly.
Constructing ridiculous scenarios.
Proven obsessive posting.
Again and again.
At all hours.
No shame.

What do you get out of it?
In front of your keyboard.

f*cking weirdo.

Will some of you listen to yourselves ffs.

How exactly is he going to get his money back? successful or not. Shall we o through some figures again? We will be worse off for going up not better off.

We lose £15 million now. it costs £10 million to go up in terms of bonuses triggered. the average spend just to compete for newly promoted sides is £13 million. The average increase in wage bills for newly promoted sides is £23 million.

Outgoings = £61 million
Average income for a newly promoted side = £44 million

= Loss of £17 million p/a.

NOW shall we be realistic?


Sorry , but your argument is fatally flawed as you have totally mixed up and confused income , losses and costs.

The club`s total costs in 2010/11 were £28m against income of £16m which gave rise to the loss of £12m.

If you are correct that costs of wages could go up by £23m , that would put costs up to £51m not the £61m you say (promotion bonuses are a one-off not a recurring cost).

If we were to get promoted , our TV income would go up from the current £3m at Championship level to a minimum of £37m at Premier level (£61m from 2013/4). So an increase in our current income level from £16m to £50m even for finishing rock bottom , even without extra commercial income.

So true figures should be about breakeven.

Keith
Tan wants to turn his £40 million UNSECURED loan into a £90 million SECURED loan. If we dont go up he will get his money back by selling assetts that HE WILL OWN as result of owning the club.

Promotion bonuses are a recurring costs as they are replaced with survival costs. triggering clauses and bonuses for staying up.

My figures are accurate.

Mr Coat, you are still making no sense with your examples.

Your key mistake of course is transfering this as a normal business purchase. Tan, once the equity is increased, has bought a £15 million business for £100 million. There is no ''doing it up to sell on''. There is NOTHING Tan or anyone can do to sell Cardiff City for over £100 million. Apart from of course turning us into a Champions League side, but in doing that cant spend a penny on the playing side from here on in. - not possible.

Now I urge you again to wake up as the only feasable way Tan will get his money back is by initially protecting his investment by becoming sole creditor, which he is about to do, and then selling the assets.

Now have a think about this instead of your pre-school infantile insults combined with some nonsense about buying a house.

Good lad.

Roath jack

Internet weirdo and business/finance expert extraordinaire strikes again.

So someone owes you £1. You then lend them £1million to ensure you get your £1 back and possibly a small part of the £1million?

You will go far.

Hit the road jack.

Hi Mr Coat. Your example makes no sense... again.

First of all it is not applied to the situation and secondly the outcome is completely wrong. Tan wants to protect his initial £6 million investment plus £32 +7% million loan notes, which is £40+ million in total. Slightly more than a quid wouldnt you say? In order to protect this he is willing to temperarily release a further £15 million at least to rid the club of other creditiors, meaning he is the only one left and there is no threat of administration hanging over his investment.

So instead of losing £40 million and only being left with 40% of a club which is essentially worthless without him covering the shortfall, he can walk away with all his money back by selling assets he now legally owns. He tunred a smaller unsecured loa into a larger secured one, perfect business.

Id love to know what sense you see in 'the other' the nonsense plot. You know the one where he continues to pour in £15 to £18 million a year to keep us above water while miraculously turning us into a Champions League side and then still only being able to barely sell us for a profit. That still makes me smile even typing it, the fact people believe it however is more than a little disturbing.

Jerk,

Fantasy Island.

Why bother putting up any money in the first place?
TG and Mr Tan could have pulled out before our last play-off final at the point where the level of investment was relatively low.
They could have pulled out at subsequent points.
They have kept investing.
They are serious about what they are doing.
They know what they are doing.

you really are a prize specimen.
When I suggest you seek help. I genuinely mean it.

There you are. A jack with a computer keyboard and screen.
Posing as a Cardiff City fan.
Rumbled very quickly.
Constructing ridiculous scenarios.
Proven obsessive posting.
Again and again.
At all hours.
No shame.

What do you get out of it?
In front of your keyboard.

f*cking weirdo.

Hi again Mr Coat, another fine poem.

Not much to respond this time, you seem to be repeating youself over and over again. hardly suprising as im your only reason to come on here. is it 50% or more of your post about me now? You call me a weirdo too... IRONY.

players, real estate, whatever hes bought under the guise of investment like training ground etc, ticket money, Tv money. Loads of revenue streams he could get his hands on, unfortunately for us the funds are needed to pay other things. But it wont be his problem.

Paranoid conspiracy theorist

Promotion bonuses are a recurring costs as they are replaced with survival costs. triggering clauses and bonuses for staying up.

My figures are accurate.

But they are clearly far from accurate.

Show me the wages figures for recently promoted clubs to see if they are anything like the £23m increase you suggest.

Your average income for clubs newly promoted to the Premier is also wrong.

I am not sure where you get your figures from , but its not a reliable source.

players, real estate, whatever hes bought under the guise of investment like training ground etc, ticket money, Tv money. Loads of revenue streams he could get his hands on, unfortunately for us the funds are needed to pay other things. But it wont be his problem.

What real estate? He can`t sell the stadium for at least 20 years under the Council covenants and the club don`t own any other real estate.
The training ground hasn`t even got as far as identifying and acquiring a site yet , and may never actaually come about if a new deal is struck with Leeke for an expanded , rented facility at the Vale (a strong possibility).

There are restrictions on mortgaging TV monies after the Portsmouth debacle.

Season ticket money is a minority of a Championship club`s income and only a very small part of a Premier club`s one , so doesn`t represent much of a potential "cash in".

Players are already charged to a secured creditor at present up to £3.2m and there is no current stated intention to pay off that creditor.

Promotion bonuses are a recurring costs as they are replaced with survival costs. triggering clauses and bonuses for staying up.

My figures are accurate.

But they are clearly far from accurate.

Show me the wages figures for recently promoted clubs to see if they are anything like the £23m increase you suggest.

Your average income for clubs newly promoted to the Premier is also wrong.

I am not sure where you get your figures from , but its not a reliable source.

So thats your way of just asking for proof, rather than disagreeing with my figures. I notice you dont correct me just tell me im wrong.

Swanseas wage bill in the CCC was £8 million, it is now £30 million. The lowest in the Prem and a hike of £22 million.

They call the Championship final the £90 million game (its actually £86 million but it doesnt have the same ring to it im sure youll agree) that is based on a team getting relegated after 1 season. £38 million parachute money and £48 million TV money and extra revenues.

these are facts not opinions

Promotion bonuses are a recurring costs as they are replaced with survival costs. triggering clauses and bonuses for staying up.

My figures are accurate.

But they are clearly far from accurate.

Show me the wages figures for recently promoted clubs to see if they are anything like the £23m increase you suggest.

Your average income for clubs newly promoted to the Premier is also wrong.

I am not sure where you get your figures from , but its not a reliable source.

So thats your way of just asking for proof, rather than disagreeing with my figures. I notice you dont correct me just tell me im wrong.

Swanseas wage bill in the CCC was £8 million, it is now £30 million. The lowest in the Prem and a hike of £22 million.

They call the Championship final the £90 million game (its actually £86 million but it doesnt have the same ring to it im sure youll agree) that is based on a team getting relegated after 1 season. £38 million parachute money and £48 million TV money and extra revenues.

these are facts not opinions

I notice you chose to ignore the previous post by since62 though as it proved your conspiracy theory as nonsense. Pitiful jack

Funny how im quoting well documented figures and yet you dont believe me, while someone else makes up a story about the stadium and council and to you that proves it wrong

Ive seen no evidence of this agreement and neither has anyone else. All we know is there WAS an agreement when Sam took over. The players we have and especially with the added ones since the close season, they will total in excess of £15-£20 million. Added to the Stadium at £44 million. that conveniently totals what we owe him.

Surely its a conspiracy theory that we are going to turn into a chamions league side and overtake liverpool and man utd as the biggest club in asia on the budget of £5-6 million. Not even big for the championship.

wake up, come on.

Promotion bonuses are a recurring costs as they are replaced with survival costs. triggering clauses and bonuses for staying up.

My figures are accurate.

But they are clearly far from accurate.

Show me the wages figures for recently promoted clubs to see if they are anything like the £23m increase you suggest.

Your average income for clubs newly promoted to the Premier is also wrong.

I am not sure where you get your figures from , but its not a reliable source.

So thats your way of just asking for proof, rather than disagreeing with my figures. I notice you dont correct me just tell me im wrong.

Swanseas wage bill in the CCC was £8 million, it is now £30 million. The lowest in the Prem and a hike of £22 million.

They call the Championship final the £90 million game (its actually £86 million but it doesnt have the same ring to it im sure youll agree) that is based on a team getting relegated after 1 season. £38 million parachute money and £48 million TV money and extra revenues.

these are facts not opinions

But what you quote are not facts at all.

Swansea`s wage bill in 2010/11 was £17.4m not the £8m you quote. And the figures for 2011/12 have not yet been published so your figure of £30m can only be an estimate , not a fact.

You mentioned in another thread the huge increases in wage bills for clubs recently promoted from the Championship to the Premier and that the average wage increase was £23m.

The facts are as follows:-

The latest published information available is for season 2010/11. The 3 clubs promoted to the Premier at the beginning of that season were Blackpool , Newcastle and WBA.
Blackpool`s wage bill went up from £12.6m in the Championship to £14m in the Premier , an increase of under £2m.
Newcastle`s wage bill went up from £47m to £54m , an increase of £7m.
WBA increased their wage bill from £24.3m to £37m , less than £13m of an increase.

None of those (factual and published) figures are anything like as high as the £23m figure you quote , hence my query as to where you sourced your figures from.

You also mention £38m of parachute money and £48m of TV and other money for reachimng the Premier. Again these figures are wrong and I query where you get them from.

The current TV money is £37m for a club finishing rock bottom of the Premier , going up by £720k for each place you finish above bottom.
Parachute money is currently £16m a season for each of the first 2 seasons you get relegated , followed by £8m a season for each of seasons 3 and 4 you stay relegated. That totals £48m.

These are the facts.

If you can point me in the direction of any official figures that say differently , I am more than happy to discuss them with you sensibly.

How boring, I actually thought I may have had a decent reply for once.

Ok, correcting my correct figures with incorrect ones and stating them as truth without a source is not really a reply.

Anyway here we are. Swansea wage bill was £7 million not £17.8 million as ridiculously suggested...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... eague.html

in that article it also shows Blackpools as £20 million, although after January it went up again. However Blackpool being the lowest payers in the history of the Premier League isnt really a good measuring stick, nor WBA and Newcastle considering they were still paying Premier League wage following their relegation. But Blackpool still saw a rise of £17 million and Swansea saw a rise of £21 million and both are mdest with their wage structures. But as was stated elsewhere the average IS £23 million increase, a quick look at the wage table will tell you this figure is fairly accurate.

As for TV money, I got the TV money and parachute money the wrong way round, but it doesnt change anything apart from emphasising my point stronger. The point being of course that our outgoings will gazzump our income on a scale even larger than it does now.

Premier League wage table:-


http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... rofit-debt

How boring, I actually thought I may have had a decent reply for once.

Ok, correcting my correct figures with incorrect ones and stating them as truth without a source is not really a reply.

Anyway here we are. Swansea wage bill was £7 million not £17.8 million as ridiculously suggested...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... eague.html

in that article it also shows Blackpools as £20 million, although after January it went up again. However Blackpool being the lowest payers in the history of the Premier League isnt really a good measuring stick, nor WBA and Newcastle considering they were still paying Premier League wage following their relegation. But Blackpool still saw a rise of £17 million and Swansea saw a rise of £21 million and both are mdest with their wage structures. But as was stated elsewhere the average IS £23 million increase, a quick look at the wage table will tell you this figure is fairly accurate.

As for TV money, I got the TV money and parachute money the wrong way round, but it doesnt change anything apart from emphasising my point stronger. The point being of course that our outgoings will gazzump our income on a scale even larger than it does now.

Premier League wage table:-


http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... rofit-debt

I find both your naivety and the faith you place in the Daily Mail almost touching.

I'm now looking at the Swansea City Football 2002 Limited's accounts for the period year ending 31/5/11. From what I can gather, you are telling us that they show wages costs of £7 million - you are basing this on a Daily Mail story dated 1/6/11 (i.e. one day after the period these accounts covered). The obvious question arises therefore, how on earth did the Daily Mail hack know what Swansea's wage bill for 10/11 was when the relevant accounting period only ended the previous day? Furthermore, Companies House's records show that these accounts were only accepted by them (i.e. placed in the public domain) on 16 February of this year - that is, more than eight months after the Daily Mail story. Once again, you have to wonder how the hack had access to the jacks' wage costs for 10/11 as quickly as he did.

Anyway, on to what the accounts actually say - do they contain a figure of £7 million for staff costs? Well, as it turns out, they do - on page 18, under the heading wages and salaries, it shows a figure of £7,443,492. Unfortunately for you however, that figure is for the period ending 31/5/10 (i.e. the year in which the jacks missed out on the Play Offs on the last day of the season). As far as their promotion season (10/11) goes, the figure is £15,455,815, which rises to £17,392,477 (almost £2 million more than we paid in that period) when social security and pension costs are included.

As for what Swansea's wage bill was in the season just ended, once again you seem to have the info to hand before it is in the public domain - their accounts for the period ending 31/5/12 have not been filed with Companies House and won't be for months yet, so how you can claim they have gone up £20 odd million (to nearly £40 million) is beyond me.

If you are going to play the arrogant, attention seeking, know it all, it might be best to stop making such schoolboy errors.

Oh, you don't have to refund me the £1 it cost me to get the accurate and reliable figures (as opposed to tabloid crap) - putting you in your place was well worth that expense.

How boring, I actually thought I may have had a decent reply for once.

Ok, correcting my correct figures with incorrect ones and stating them as truth without a source is not really a reply.

Anyway here we are. Swansea wage bill was £7 million not £17.8 million as ridiculously suggested...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... eague.html

in that article it also shows Blackpools as £20 million, although after January it went up again. However Blackpool being the lowest payers in the history of the Premier League isnt really a good measuring stick, nor WBA and Newcastle considering they were still paying Premier League wage following their relegation. But Blackpool still saw a rise of £17 million and Swansea saw a rise of £21 million and both are mdest with their wage structures. But as was stated elsewhere the average IS £23 million increase, a quick look at the wage table will tell you this figure is fairly accurate.

As for TV money, I got the TV money and parachute money the wrong way round, but it doesnt change anything apart from emphasising my point stronger. The point being of course that our outgoings will gazzump our income on a scale even larger than it does now.

Premier League wage table:-


http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... rofit-debt

I think , as TOBW points out in this thread , that my figures are correct ones (from published audited accounts) and that yours aren`t even from the correct year!!

By the way , WBA don`t pay Premier wages on relegation as they are one of the very few clubs that have relegation clauses in the contracts of the players they sign for that very reason.

It should be noted that our wage bill for 2010/11 is severely distorted by a significant amount paid in bonuses as a result of promotion. The actual wages were several million less than the quoted figure.

It should be noted that our wage bill for 2010/11 is severely distorted by a significant amount paid in bonuses as a result of promotion. The actual wages were several million less than the quoted figure.

As a suggestion why don't you and your mate roath m meet up and discuss it to your hearts content. Then you can spare the rest of us

It should be noted that our wage bill for 2010/11 is severely distorted by a significant amount paid in bonuses as a result of promotion. The actual wages were several million less than the quoted figure.

As a suggestion why don't you and your mate roath m meet up and discuss it to your hearts content. Then you can spare the rest of us

As a suggestion why don't you put me on block to spare you from reading my posts.

Or just not click on them.

It should be noted that our wage bill for 2010/11 is severely distorted by a significant amount paid in bonuses as a result of promotion. The actual wages were several million less than the quoted figure.

As a suggestion why don't you and your mate roath m meet up and discuss it to your hearts content. Then you can spare the rest of us

As a suggestion why don't you put me on block to spare you from reading my posts.

Or just not click on them.

Shouldn't have to since YOU'RE ON A CARDIFF CITY FORUM.
Besides if I hadnt read your posts I would have missed you admitting Wigan were a bigger club than you and getting tied in up knots over britton

It should be noted that our wage bill for 2010/11 is severely distorted by a significant amount paid in bonuses as a result of promotion. The actual wages were several million less than the quoted figure.

As a suggestion why don't you and your mate roath m meet up and discuss it to your hearts content. Then you can spare the rest of us

As a suggestion why don't you put me on block to spare you from reading my posts.

Or just not click on them.

Shouldn't have to since YOU'RE ON A CARDIFF CITY FORUM.
Besides if I hadnt read your posts I would have missed you admitting Wigan were a bigger club than you and getting tied in up knots over britton

Well then don't moan at my posts when you have opportunity to block them but choose not to.

The only place I got tied up in knots is in your head. Now as you so eloquently put it in another thread, trot on. I've no inclination to waste any time on you.