18 months ago

Where was everybody 18 months ago when Tan first changed our colours? If we had this much resistance then we wouldn't be in this mess. Fact.

Where was everybody 18 months ago when Tan first changed our colours? If we had this much resistance then we wouldn't be in this mess. Fact.

I told you that at the time.

Everyone was busy dusting off their old premier league sticker books thats where. Even the most anti Tan posters have admitted to loving the trappings of such a dictatorship - be it players, wins etc even heard "ill give it one season in the orem and then im off"

Thats like saying "ill wear a fur coat for the rest of this year and then thats it - its a horrible thing"

We are debt free now and the prem dream faded away. No excuse though

We are debt free now and the prem dream faded away. No excuse though

So the £50m you spent this year and calling for more is just magic beans? Or a gift from the great tan?

Where was everybody 18 months ago when Tan first changed our colours? If we had this much resistance then we wouldn't be in this mess. Fact.

Following gwyns lead by begging and bending over to take. Your capital city syndrome blinded you to the fact you were being mugged off by a mad man.

We are debt free now and the prem dream faded away. No excuse though

So the £50m you spent this year and calling for more is just magic beans? Or a gift from the great tan?

Last time a looked Tan was a billionaire.

Where was everybody 18 months ago when Tan first changed our colours? If we had this much resistance then we wouldn't be in this mess. Fact.

Following gwyns lead by begging and bending over to take. Your capital city syndrome blinded you to the fact you were being mugged off by a mad man.

Speaking if that, where is Big Gwyn these days? Been quiet on here of late.

What resistance,in a couple of days it'll all die down and malky will be a distant memory,it happened at southampton

We are debt free now and the prem dream faded away. No excuse though

So the £50m you spent this year and calling for more is just magic beans? Or a gift from the great tan?

Last time a looked Tan was a billionaire.

Meaning what?

Key example here of the lack of understanding from Cardiff fans. That is HIS money not Cardiff City's. you want some then its in the form of loans.... Debt. Tan is your credit card.

Meaning he owns the club. We are not borrowing any more. Penny dropped?

Where was everybody 18 months ago when Tan first changed our colours? If we had this much resistance then we wouldn't be in this mess. Fact.

What difference does it make now?
hindsight is a wondeful thing FACT
red blue orange purple or pink its all irrelevant now.

now unity is certainly needed.
the "i told you so" and claims of higher ground are f*cking pointless

Meaning he owns the club. We are not borrowing any more. Penny dropped?

Jesus Christ

Thats not how it works mate. Cardiff City is a business, it can only spend what the business earns. Any outside spending "Tan" loans the club money to spend.... Debt. You honestly thought he was gifting you this money and signing the cheques "Vincent Tan"

Its been baffling me why you guys keep calling for rich chairmen, now i see why, you have no idea what a chairman does. It is a human credit card, nothing more nothing less. And you wonder why your debt levels reach £100m odd.

O'k you don't get it. He is Cardiff city now. He has converted all the debt. Catch up. Your right about the spending though. The new rules have kicked in so he has bought a training ground is increasing the stadium capacity. So he can spend more money on HIS club. So are you saying Man City are in debt?

He's converted all the debt? When did this happen?

Oh I must have dreamt it lol. Are we still blue too?

O'k you don't get it. He is Cardiff city now. He has converted all the debt. Catch up. Your right about the spending though. The new rules have kicked in so he has bought a training ground is increasing the stadium capacity. So he can spend more money on HIS club. So are you saying Man City are in debt?

Okay, you really dont understand. Wow.

Tan owns 70% of the club, or wants to (or so im led to believe). Owning the club means he is entitles to a 70% dividend if there is one on the profits, again if there is one (there wont be). It does not mean any penny spent is then from his bank account. Would be great wouldnt it - but no.

If the club want to spend £50m on players but dont have it to spend, an owner can step in and loan the company money, Tan does this and I believe he chooses to not add interest these days.

The company then owes Tan £50m. The company, being the club of course.

When Tan decides to sell - he sells the club for what he believes it is worth. THE DEBT IS STILL THERE. The company still owe £50m in loan notes.

(Man city are owned by a consortium who pump money in via sponsorship and are thus not entitled dor it to be repaid as they are paying for a service, all be it vastly overpaying for it - i.e. they dont want it back, it is their toy)

Last edited by Castro on Fri Dec 20, 2013 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

We are debt free now and the prem dream faded away. No excuse though

Have I missed something then...?

Where was everybody 18 months ago when Tan first changed our colours? If we had this much resistance then we wouldn't be in this mess. Fact.

Stopped going at that point and its hurt at times but glad I took the stance in the knowledge of what that prick has since done to the club.

O'k you don't get it. He is Cardiff city now. He has converted all the debt. Catch up. Your right about the spending though. The new rules have kicked in so he has bought a training ground is increasing the stadium capacity. So he can spend more money on HIS club. So are you saying Man City are in debt?

Okay, you really dont understand. Wow.

Tan owns 70% of the club, or wants to (or so im led to believe). Owning the club means he is entitles to a 70% dividend if there is one on the profits, again if there is one (there wont be). It does not mean any penny spent is then from his bank account. Would be great wouldnt it - but no.

If the club want to spend £50m on players but dont have it to spend, an owner can step in and loan the company money, Tan does this and I believe he chooses to not add interest these days.

The company then owes Tan £50m. The company, being the club of course.

When Tan decides to sell - he sells the club for what he believes it is worth. THE DEBT IS STILL THERE. The company still owe £50m in loan notes.

(Man city are owned by a consortium who pump money in via sponsorship and are thus not entitled dor it to be repaid as they are paying for a service, all be it vastly overpaying for it - i.e. they dont want it back, it is their toy)

Really sorry mate. And I know you have put a lot of effort in to the post. But you say Tan wants to own 70%? If that what's true then I would understand your point. Try again. This deems your whole point invalid. Do your homework and come back.

Good effort though.

O'k you don't get it. He is Cardiff city now. He has converted all the debt. Catch up. Your right about the spending though. The new rules have kicked in so he has bought a training ground is increasing the stadium capacity. So he can spend more money on HIS club. So are you saying Man City are in debt?

Okay, you really dont understand. Wow.

Tan owns 70% of the club, or wants to (or so im led to believe). Owning the club means he is entitles to a 70% dividend if there is one on the profits, again if there is one (there wont be). It does not mean any penny spent is then from his bank account. Would be great wouldnt it - but no.

If the club want to spend £50m on players but dont have it to spend, an owner can step in and loan the company money, Tan does this and I believe he chooses to not add interest these days.

The company then owes Tan £50m. The company, being the club of course.

When Tan decides to sell - he sells the club for what he believes it is worth. THE DEBT IS STILL THERE. The company still owe £50m in loan notes.

(Man city are owned by a consortium who pump money in via sponsorship and are thus not entitled dor it to be repaid as they are paying for a service, all be it vastly overpaying for it - i.e. they dont want it back, it is their toy)

Really sorry mate. And I know you have put a lot of effort in to the post. But you say Tan wants to own 70%? If that what's true then I would understand your point. Try again. This deems your whole point invalid. Do your homework and come back.

Good effort though.

Why woukd you only understand my point if he wants to own 70%?

The same applies if its 3%, 33%, 70% or 100%. The only thing that changes is the dividend.

You really dont get it do you?