I think todays statement confirms one thing

and that it is Tan won't be converting the debt as he stated that he is willing to lend the club more money in the future.

Borrowing will continue to raise, raise and raise.

and that it is Tan won't be converting the debt as he stated that he is willing to lend the club more money in the future.

Borrowing will continue to raise, raise and raise.

Sorry Adam, there is neither credibility or logic in your statement that "Tan won't be converting the debt..." above and it does you no credit

Tan's STATED aim is to do exactly that and he certainly appears to be heading that way judging by his continuing purchase of club shares

Other items apart, it would still be possible for Tan to 'loan' the club money even after a debt-to-equity conversion, although the likelihood is that he is simply saying he will underwrite any further debt in the short-term; possibly even during the January transfer window in an effort to ensure the club stays in the Premier League and appease disgruntled fans

We'll see as I think that he is buying up the shares to place the club on the stock exchange. The debt would probably be covered via the selling of shares rather than Tan himself.

He wants to make profit so selling a business with debt is not worth much. So he will 100% sort the debt out once he owns the 98% he says. Good for us and good for him

Not really a problem since he is 98% owner, soon to be full owner, he is only lending money to himself... if it doesn't get paid back it's only himself out of pocket.

We'll see as I think that he is buying up the shares to place the club on the stock exchange. The debt would probably be covered via the selling of shares rather than Tan himself.

Where do you think the money come from that he lent us in the first place?

The tooth fairy?

Tan lends us money, interest free now may I add, and will soon own 98% of the club so whichever way you dress it up Tan is in debted to himself.

He wont be 98% owner if a stock market flotation was to happen through.

He wants to make profit so selling a business with debt is not worth much. So he will 100% sort the debt out once he owns the 98% he says. Good for us and good for him

Once he gets the 98% he will out it on the stock market and then the markets will sort the debt out and not him personally. Hes being very careful with his wording IMO

He wont be 98% owner if a stock market flotation was to happen through.

Then he would be selling part of HIS stake in the club.

Do you think he bought his shares with money from the tooth fairy also?

I don't think threatening other shareholders that if they didn't sell to him for a low price or he'll pull the plug is the right way forward but he needs to learn from other football clubs who have floated on the markets and the vast majority of them have failed to create any more finances going down that avenue

Where do you think the money come from that he lent us in the first place?

The tooth fairy?

Tan lends us money, interest free now may I add, and will soon own 98% of the club so whichever way you dress it up Tan is in debted to himself.

Spot on...Cardiff city`s debt is Soft debt....Tan putting money into a club with little asstets..at the time.....Man.utds debt is "hard Debt" directly mortgaged on the assets on the club...hence, Man, utds supporters hatred of the Glaziers....
Its fairly irrelevant whether Tan actually converts this soft debt to equity but may help with premier league new financial fair play rules if no interest is charged.

He wants to make profit so selling a business with debt is not worth much. So he will 100% sort the debt out once he owns the 98% he says. Good for us and good for him

^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^

I think we all accept that Tan isn't 'in' this for the sole benefit of Cardiff City FC and its supporters BUT in the grand scheme of things it somewhat suits our (by that I mean the club's) purposes if (or when) he leaves he does so in a state 100 times better than when he arrived, i.e. effectively debt-free probably via flotation) and established in the Premier League

Can't see too much wrong with that personally

I don't think threatening other shareholders that if they didn't sell to him for a low price or he'll pull the plug is the right way forward but he needs to learn from other football clubs who have floated on the markets and the vast majority of them have failed to create any more finances going down that avenue

its business ,something i thought you would of been aware of the stock flotation cant take place for over three years as kieth confirmed a few months ago, the stock exchanges around the world have certain rules that the company would have to meet ,debt free being one of them , he would have to convert the debt to equity before he could float us

I don't think threatening other shareholders that if they didn't sell to him for a low price or he'll pull the plug is the right way forward but he needs to learn from other football clubs who have floated on the markets and the vast majority of them have failed to create any more finances going down that avenue

I dont think you are in any position to comment on threatening others do you?

Sorry I'm getting to my point completely going about it in the longest way possible but is each and everyone of us now has the same mindset that he is in it for the money rather than the love of the club which lets be honest was the belief of many on here in the recent past.

I don't think threatening other shareholders that if they didn't sell to him for a low price or he'll pull the plug is the right way forward but he needs to learn from other football clubs who have floated on the markets and the vast majority of them have failed to create any more finances going down that avenue

I dont think you are in any position to comment on threatening others do you?

People dont pay bills then whats wrong with treatening legal action against them..?

I'm sure some people seem to think that when turning the debt to equity, somehow we the fans will own the club.

I may be thick but I can't see what difference it will make to us either way, either he own the club and the debt that goes with it, and if he ever sells it then the debt comes out of the sale and is paid off to him by the new purchasers.

If there is no debt, then he still owns the club and when he sells it he keeps the full purchase price, either way it's his money, his club and whether it's in equity, debt or whatever you package it as, we as fans will be in exactly the same position.

Incidentally, from what I have been informed by those described by involved or at least very much in the know, the debt to equity swap is still very much on target and the 98% share ownership is all part of the ongoing moves along that plan.

As for the promise of up to fifty million pound more in loans with no interest charged, that is all earmarked for such projects as the ground expansion etc. and built into the financial plans for the coming year.

I don't think threatening other shareholders that if they didn't sell to him for a low price or he'll pull the plug is the right way forward but he needs to learn from other football clubs who have floated on the markets and the vast majority of them have failed to create any more finances going down that avenue

I dont think you are in any position to comment on threatening others do you?

People dont pay bills then whats wrong with treatening legal action against them..?

What like when you didnt pay your printing bill?

I don't think threatening other shareholders that if they didn't sell to him for a low price or he'll pull the plug is the right way forward but he needs to learn from other football clubs who have floated on the markets and the vast majority of them have failed to create any more finances going down that avenue

I dont think you are in any position to comment on threatening others do you?

People dont pay bills then whats wrong with treatening legal action against them..?

What like when you didnt pay your printing bill?

I don't think threatening other shareholders that if they didn't sell to him for a low price or he'll pull the plug is the right way forward but he needs to learn from other football clubs who have floated on the markets and the vast majority of them have failed to create any more finances going down that avenue

I dont think you are in any position to comment on threatening others do you?

People dont pay bills then whats wrong with treatening legal action against them..?

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ex-counci ... 0309902520

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Not quite a case of not paying their bills then.

I don't think threatening other shareholders that if they didn't sell to him for a low price or he'll pull the plug is the right way forward but he needs to learn from other football clubs who have floated on the markets and the vast majority of them have failed to create any more finances going down that avenue

I dont think you are in any position to comment on threatening others do you?

People dont pay bills then whats wrong with treatening legal action against them..?

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ex-counci ... 0309902520

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Not quite a case of not paying their bills then.

of course it was!!! damage to property and bills from the tradesmen who repaired the damage. FACT

Yet none of these FACTS were brought up in the court case. Strange that.

Last edited by Mario Polotelli on Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Like I said Adamski, you are no position to comment on the threatening of others

Brown, who has five court appearances for eight offences, including possession of an offensive weapon, a football banning order, assaulting police and public order matters

Like I said Adamski, you are no position to comment on the threatening of others

Brown, who has five court appearances for eight offences, including possession of an offensive weapon, a football banning order, assaulting police and public order matters

did I threaten whilst doing those offences then..?

Like I said Adamski, you are no position to comment on the threatening of others

Brown, who has five court appearances for eight offences, including possession of an offensive weapon, a football banning order, assaulting police and public order matters

did I threaten whilst doing those offences then..?

Yes.

You also admit to threatening your tenants, so much so she had to lock here children inside for their own safety you big f*cking bully. Shame on you.

Also, outside The Cornwall a few years back you were offering to pay people to intimidate that women who you sold your client book to and never paid you the money.

You remember that conversation you big f*cking bully?

Like I said Adamski, you are no position to comment on the threatening of others

Brown, who has five court appearances for eight offences, including possession of an offensive weapon, a football banning order, assaulting police and public order matters

did I threaten whilst doing those offences then..?

Yes.

You also admit to threatening your tenants, so much so she had to lock here children inside for their own safety you big f*cking bully. Shame on you.

Absolute bollocks!!! Threatening to take civil legal action FFS!!!

Like I said Adamski, you are no position to comment on the threatening of others

Brown, who has five court appearances for eight offences, including possession of an offensive weapon, a football banning order, assaulting police and public order matters

did I threaten whilst doing those offences then..?

Yes.

You also admit to threatening your tenants, so much so she had to lock here children inside for their own safety you big f*cking bully. Shame on you.

Like I said Adamski, you are no position to comment on the threatening of others

Brown, who has five court appearances for eight offences, including possession of an offensive weapon, a football banning order, assaulting police and public order matters

did I threaten whilst doing those offences then..?

Yes.

You also admit to threatening your tenants, so much so she had to lock here children inside for their own safety you big f*cking bully. Shame on you.

Absolute bollocks!!! Threatening to take civil legal action FFS!!!

"I can assure you, you will be out of the property by the end of the month. Do the right thing. Find another property otherwise things will get out of hand. I promise you."

"He said he needed the family out no matter what anyone said,"

Even your own solicitor said:

"He was frustrated by the situation and he behaved in a wholly inappropriate way."

and the Judge

"One can only imagine the climate of fear that built up around them during the 10-day period. Your behaviour during that time was despicable."

You were also fined £2000 for your behaviour.

Doesnt quite stack with your story that all you did was threaten legal action because they had wrecked your house does it?

Bully

Like I said Adamski, you are no position to comment on the threatening of others

Brown, who has five court appearances for eight offences, including possession of an offensive weapon, a football banning order, assaulting police and public order matters

did I threaten whilst doing those offences then..?

Yes.

You also admit to threatening your tenants, so much so she had to lock here children inside for their own safety you big f*cking bully. Shame on you.

Absolute bollocks!!! Threatening to take civil legal action FFS!!!

"I can assure you, you will be out of the property by the end of the month. Do the right thing. Find another property otherwise things will get out of hand. I promise you."

"He said he needed the family out no matter what anyone said,"

Even your own solicitor said:

"He was frustrated by the situation and he behaved in a wholly inappropriate way."

and the Judge

"One can only imagine the climate of fear that built up around them during the 10-day period. Your behaviour during that time was despicable."

You were also fined £2000 for your behaviour.

Doesnt quite stack with your story that all you did was threaten legal action because they had wrecked your house does it?

Bully

So 'out of hand' can't mean 'Civil action' through the courts then..?