' Club Shares ' Debt Free Club?

Is Tan going to make our club debt Free as promised and turn his debt in to equity?

Who has got what shares, anyone know ?



If all the other share holders blocked out anything Tan did on a vote, after all he does not own over 50% yet?

Isn't there a percentage holding that, once reached, results in Tan having to take more responsibility (can't think of the exact term) for the club ?

VT has an option to purchase more shares before anyone else? True or Not?

Are City currently over a £100 mill in debt?

Seen a post by Gwyn,which got me thinking hmmmm

At this very moment I believe they could block Tan as on paper they have more shares than Tan. But none would dare.

Tan, if he wanted could make City Debt Free anytime Tan wanted.
Also extra Shares have been made available well over a year ago for Tan, but Tan never bought them as promised.

Ian, Yes City are about £110 mill approx in Debt.

It's accruing interest at a rate of 7%.

At this very moment I believe they could block Tan as on paper they have more shares than Tan. But none would dare.

....and you can't blame them, they too can see the advantages of being alongside him just in case we keep moving upwards!

You're an old business man, crap at pulling pints ( ) but you know once you start or have invested money, you want success and you want profits!

At this very moment I believe they could block Tan as on paper they have more shares than Tan. But none would dare.

Tan, if he wanted could make City Debt Free anytime Tan wanted.
Also extra Shares have been made available well over a year ago for Tan, but Tan never bought them as promised.

Ian, Yes City are about £110 mill approx in Debt.


It's accruing interest at a rate of 7%.

So basically then we carry on as it is untill when as there has to be a pop point of loans vs us surely unless he pays everyone off and converts debt to equity like promised before the start of last season otherwise we carry on hilting up debt and hes making ZERO back if whats said is true reguarding the money hes putting in per month needed to cover all debts, wheres the business sence in that?

Last edited by Bluebird1977 on Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

At this very moment I believe they could block Tan as on paper they have more shares than Tan. But none would dare.

....and you can't blame them, they too can see the advantages of being alongside him just in case we keep moving upwards!

You're an old business man, crap at pulling pints ( ) but you know once you start or have invested money, you want success and you want profits!

Cheers

At this very moment I believe they could block Tan as on paper they have more shares than Tan. But none would dare.

Tan, if he wanted could make City Debt Free anytime Tan wanted.
Also extra Shares have been made available well over a year ago for Tan, but Tan never bought them as promised.

Ian, Yes City are about £110 mill approx in Debt.

So basically then we carry on as it is untill when as there has to be a pop point of loans vs us surely unless he pays everyone off and converts debt to equity like promised before the start of last season otherwise we carry on hilting up debt and hes making ZERO back if whats said is true reguarding the money hes putting in per month needed to cover all debts, wheres the business sence in that?

Ian, We cant carry on as we are, League rules will stop this thankfully

But the debt does worry me and always has, most fans dont think about the debt, they just look at whats happening on the field of play, not the real picture.

At this very moment I believe they could block Tan as on paper they have more shares than Tan. But none would dare.

Tan, if he wanted could make City Debt Free anytime Tan wanted.
Also extra Shares have been made available well over a year ago for Tan, but Tan never bought them as promised.

Ian, Yes City are about £110 mill approx in Debt.

So basically then we carry on as it is untill when as there has to be a pop point of loans vs us surely unless he pays everyone off and converts debt to equity like promised before the start of last season otherwise we carry on hilting up debt and hes making ZERO back if whats said is true reguarding the money hes putting in per month needed to cover all debts, wheres the business sence in that?

Ian, We cant carry on as we are, League rules will stop this thankfully

But the debt does worry me and always has, most fans dont think about the debt, they just look at whats happening on the field of play, not the real picture.

I agree it is a worry but the other thing is while we still have this supposed debt to equity promise myth going on for however long that may be tan will do what he wants with the club knowing nobody will question him from within the club due to the skiddys that will incure if he does the old " I will look for new investors" trick as hes got the hold still there of this debt to equity but ont he other hand why has it not been sorted yet.

At this very moment I believe they could block Tan as on paper they have more shares than Tan. But none would dare.

Tan, if he wanted could make City Debt Free anytime Tan wanted.
Also extra Shares have been made available well over a year ago for Tan, but Tan never bought them as promised.

Ian, Yes City are about £110 mill approx in Debt.

So basically then we carry on as it is untill when as there has to be a pop point of loans vs us surely unless he pays everyone off and converts debt to equity like promised before the start of last season otherwise we carry on hilting up debt and hes making ZERO back if whats said is true reguarding the money hes putting in per month needed to cover all debts, wheres the business sence in that?

Ian, We cant carry on as we are, League rules will stop this thankfully

But the debt does worry me and always has, most fans dont think about the debt, they just look at whats happening on the field of play, not the real picture.

VT has always said that debt to equity would follow Langston being sorted & despite rumours that this was almost sorted weeks ago; we dont seem any further forward. The time to worry will be either if Langston rumbles on or IF Langaston get sorted then debt isn't turned into equity within a reasonable timeframe.

Is Tan going to make our club debt Free as promised and turn his debt in to equity?

Who has got what shares, anyone know ?



If all the other share holders blocked out anything Tan did on a vote, after all he does not own over 50% yet?

Isn't there a percentage holding that, once reached, results in Tan having to take more responsibility (can't think of the exact term) for the club ?

VT has an option to purchase more shares before anyone else? True or Not?

Are City currently over a £100 mill in debt?

The board make the day to day decisions and the shareholders 'in theory' elect the board. So as long as the board go along with VT then he can do what he wants.

In order to change the board you would need a proposal from the majority of the shareholders and an EGM. (Unless the club has something different in it's articles)

In practice the board can't block VT's decisions because not only is he the major shareholder, but he is the major debt holder with most of the security. Just the same as when PMG were the major debt holder with security. So not only has VT appointed a good % of the board,l but those left will be afraid of him pulling his support, which the club have relied on for it's survival and still will even in the prem - albeit to a lesser extent.

In theory they can, but in practise

Is Tan going to make our club debt Free as promised and turn his debt in to equity?

Who has got what shares, anyone know ?



If all the other share holders blocked out anything Tan did on a vote, after all he does not own over 50% yet?

Isn't there a percentage holding that, once reached, results in Tan having to take more responsibility (can't think of the exact term) for the club ?

VT has an option to purchase more shares before anyone else? True or Not?

Are City currently over a £100 mill in debt?

The board make the day to day decisions and the shareholders 'in theory' elect the board. So as long as the board go along with VT then he can do what he wants.

In order to change the board you would need a proposal from the majority of the shareholders and an EGM. (Unless the club has something different in it's articles)

In practice the board can't block VT's decisions because not only is he the major shareholder, but he is the major debt holder with most of the security. Just the same as when PMG were the major debt holder with security. So not only has VT appointed a good % of the board,l but those left will be afraid of him pulling his support, which the club have relied on for it's survival and still will even in the prem - albeit to a lesser extent.

In theory they can, but in practise

About sums it up.

The man with the dough pulls the strings or something on that line.

Always best to keep these things simple. Tan runs the show and does what he wants. A rebellion in the board room is a risky thing that could turn to disaster for those involved. Forget about any boardroom rebellion.

Is Tan going to make our club debt Free as promised and turn his debt in to equity?

Who has got what shares, anyone know ?



If all the other share holders blocked out anything Tan did on a vote, after all he does not own over 50% yet?

Isn't there a percentage holding that, once reached, results in Tan having to take more responsibility (can't think of the exact term) for the club ?

VT has an option to purchase more shares before anyone else? True or Not?

Are City currently over a £100 mill in debt?

Here are the percentages of the shares that have been allotted.

35% - Vincent Tan
11% - Michael Isaac
8% - PMG Estaes Ltd
7% - Steve Borley
4% - Dato Chan Tien Ghee
35% - the rest of the smaller shareholders

These are provided by Dave Sugarman.

He who pays the piper call's the tune.
any more any one?

35% smaller share holders.
that's a big block of share's,wonder who they are.
carl if you could be so kind.

Didn't Companies House report that TG had left and his debt/shares paid back?

Will we be able to buy shares in it if it is floated?. I know we won't be able to afford much but we could own a extremely small part of the club. I would do it.

Is Tan going to make our club debt Free as promised and turn his debt in to equity?

Who has got what shares, anyone know ?



If all the other share holders blocked out anything Tan did on a vote, after all he does not own over 50% yet?

Isn't there a percentage holding that, once reached, results in Tan having to take more responsibility (can't think of the exact term) for the club ?

VT has an option to purchase more shares before anyone else? True or Not?

Are City currently over a £100 mill in debt?

Here are the percentages of the shares that have been allotted.

35% - Vincent Tan
11% - Michael Isaac
8% - PMG Estaes Ltd
7% - Steve Borley
4% - Dato Chan Tien Ghee
35% - the rest of the smaller shareholders

These are provided by Dave Sugarman.

I thought PMG were no longer involved?

As I remember it, VT said he'd convert the debt into equity when the Langston issue was resolved. Maybe someone is putting obstacles in the way of this, holding the club to ransom as it were. This happened before with a certain Lebanese c**t/football guru (depending on which end of the dessert spoon your sitting) playing brinkmanship games. Wonder if he's involved with Langston at all

Every one has been led to believe Sam is Langston.are you suggesting another theory,if so I'd like to hear it.

Every one has been led to believe Sam is Langston.are you suggesting another theory,if so I'd like to hear it.

Absolutelt not. He IS Langston - and if it could be proved then he'd be fucked. He's admitted it to me personally as well btw.

Post by Dave Sugarman on the subject.....

The breakdown from the list of shareholders filed by the club at Companies House in September 2011 is as follows (the figures are approximate):

35% - Vincent Tan
11% - Michael Isaac
8% - PMG Estaes Ltd
7% - Steve Borley
4% - Dato Chan Tien Ghee
35% - the rest of the smaller shareholders

There may have been some minor changes to the percentages since then, but nothing major. Those figures are almost certainly very close to the mark.

Tan's position of strength does not come from his shareholding. While he is the club's largest individual shareholder, he is not the owner, he is not a majority shareholder, he is not the chairman and he's not even a member of the board of directors.

Tan has what is effectively total control of the club simply because he is its largest creditor and he is the one who funds its activities through loans provided by himself and his other companies.

The make-up of the current board is interesting because Tan has many more representatives than he is entitled to under the terms of the 2010 investment agreement. I don't know how that situation has come about - you'd have to ask Steve Borley that question.

As regards an issue like floating the club on the stock exchange, the rest of the shareholders could easily veto such a move if they so desired. However, there would need to be plenty of manoeuvring behind the scenes before such a thing could happen anyway and an EGM would be essential. It would never be a case of Tan simply going ahead and doing it as was suggested in some of the recent press reports.

It will be interesting to see what happens if Tan ever does decide to convert a percentage of his debts to equity, as he has apparently given an undertaking to do. Although there are shares which could be allotted to him under the terms of the last agreement, I'm certain that another EGM would be required if he was to convert a significant percentage of his debt into shares as more shares would need to be created. Personally, I don't envisage such a thing happening any time soon.