POST VT INTERVIEW: OUR CLUB'S FINANCIAL SITUATION

In the aftermath of Tan's interview with the BBC I have broken down some of the key points into sub threads so that we can discuss and air our opinions on the specific points of the interview in a thread that is not going to get bogged down to much, there is clearly lots to discuss these sub threads will allow us to do that on a point by point basis.



Vincent Tan interview can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=137247


### POSTING GUIDELINES ###

Lads, keep your replies decent, racism, abuse and trolling will not be tolerated at all on this thread, this is a good platform for discussion and I know people are going to get opinionated and blood pressures may rise, but keep it clean and on topic and you won't find yourself with a 1 day ban allowing the rest of us discuss this like gentlemen

This is the primary discussion point for me;

*All creditors are paid off, total debt is now 80 million all owed to Tan
*Debt to equity transfer is now only 'being considered'
*Stock exchange float is abandoned.
*Club will be made sustainable via Premier league success
*VT will stay if we are relegated


A definate change of direction from VT here.

This is the big point .

The fact the debt is only 80 million tops is huge for our club
I was really worried with people talking well over 100 mill

Am I allowed any I told you so's if they are constructive?

I told you the float was ridiculous and I also told you debt to equity makes no sense. If he only needs to acquire 10% of the club then there is no way he will pay £80m for it, that values the company at £800m pro rata which is bonkers.

I assume there will be a partial debt to equity. He will wait to see if you go down first though as if you do the 10% could be acquired for maybe £6m - £7m, where as if you stay up - that doubles.

So if you go down, that £80m debt then becomes £73m (for arguments sake). Meaning an asset strip will pay him off in total and a little bit more.

Everything loaned is covered as always.

I thought it was over the £100 million mark the debt. So its £80 million then with him owning 90% shares. Just how is he going to convert that £80 million into equity when he already owes all those shares?

I thought it was over the £100 million mark the debt. So its £80 million then with him owning 90% shares. Just how is he going to convert that £80 million into equity when he already owes all those shares?

He has to own 100% of the shares to convert otherwise the current 10% of shareholder would make a fortune and if he wanted to buy the shares in the future would cost loads ,but only 80 million in debt not 150 million hmmmmmmm

I thought it was over the £100 million mark the debt. So its £80 million then with him owning 90% shares. Just how is he going to convert that £80 million into equity when he already owes all those shares?

He has to own 100% of the shares to convert otherwise the current 10% of shareholder would make a fortune and if he wanted to buy the shares in the future would cost loads ,but only 80 million in debt not 150 million hmmmmmmm

£80m at the time of the interview. Id imagine you are losing a lot of money monthly.

If the £50m summer spend is amortised too, it probably means its more like £105m, he just doesnt have to count the other half yet.

I thought it was over the £100 million mark the debt. So its £80 million then with him owning 90% shares. Just how is he going to convert that £80 million into equity when he already owes all those shares?

He has to own 100% of the shares to convert otherwise the current 10% of shareholder would make a fortune and if he wanted to buy the shares in the future would cost loads ,but only 80 million in debt not 150 million hmmmmmmm

£80m at the time of the interview. Id imagine you are losing a lot of money monthly.

If the £50m summer spend is amortised too, it probably means its more like £105m, he just doesnt have to count the other half yet.

again i will tell you that tan isnt puting money in monthly this season- wages ,cost etc are covered by the 80million plus increase in turnover stop making things up roathy

So who pays the £40m transfer fees, the £40m (bare minimum) wages per year, operating costs and costs carried over from last year then?

Canton fairies?

TV money and prize money will amount to about £62m, ticket sales from this year are very slow apparently lets say £8.5m based on 17,000 sales, sponsorship is about £8m for a newly promoted side.

I make that just under £80m income with expenditure about £100m. You do the math.

So who pays the £40m transfer fees, the £40m (bare minimum) wages per year, operating costs and costs carried over from last year then?

Canton fairies?

TV money and prize money will amount to about £62m, ticket sales from this year are very slow apparently lets say £8.5m based on 17,000 sales, sponsorship is about £8m for a newly promoted side.

I make that just under £80m income with expenditure about £100m. You do the math.

your figures change in every thread you really are a jack retard ,you cant educate pork

your figures change in every thread you really are a jack retard ,you cant educate pork

Which figures have changed? Im trying to give you best case scenario.

So who pays the £40m transfer fees, the £40m (bare minimum) wages per year, operating costs and costs carried over from last year then?

Canton fairies?

TV money and prize money will amount to about £62m, ticket sales from this year are very slow apparently lets say £8.5m based on 17,000 sales, sponsorship is about £8m for a newly promoted side.

I make that just under £80m income with expenditure about £100m. You do the math.

If like you said above we have only paid half the transfer fees then we will break even

If like you said above we have only paid half the transfer fees then we will break even

But you still owe the other half

Whether you pay it this year or next year makes no difference. Its a way of showing figures without showing future liabilities. That isnt something a fan should be interested in, thats business rhetoric.

If like you said above we have only paid half the transfer fees then we will break even

But you still owe the other half

Whether you pay it this year or next year makes no difference. Its a way of showing figures without showing future liabilities. That isnt something a fan should be interested in, thats business rhetoric.

We will pay the other half when we sell Caulker and Medel after relegation.

If like you said above we have only paid half the transfer fees then we will break even

But you still owe the other half

Whether you pay it this year or next year makes no difference. Its a way of showing figures without showing future liabilities. That isnt something a fan should be interested in, thats business rhetoric.

We will pay the other half when we sell Caulker and Medel after relegation.

Then you lose £20m on the assets sheet. Either way the cost will be bared.

If like you said above we have only paid half the transfer fees then we will break even

But you still owe the other half

Whether you pay it this year or next year makes no difference. Its a way of showing figures without showing future liabilities. That isnt something a fan should be interested in, thats business rhetoric.

We will pay the other half when we sell Caulker and Medel after relegation.

Then you lose £20m on the assets sheet. Either way the cost will be bared.

We have assets? That's a bit of positive news.

Am I allowed any I told you so's if they are constructive?

I told you the float was ridiculous and I also told you debt to equity makes no sense. If he only needs to acquire 10% of the club then there is no way he will pay £80m for it, that values the company at £800m pro rata which is bonkers.

I assume there will be a partial debt to equity. He will wait to see if you go down first though as if you do the 10% could be acquired for maybe £6m - £7m, where as if you stay up - that doubles.

So if you go down, that £80m debt then becomes £73m (for arguments sake). Meaning an asset strip will pay him off in total and a little bit more.

Everything loaned is covered as always.

If he paid off the debt then he wouldn't own 100% of the company, he would need to buy the remaining shares as well to do that.