does debt not turned to equity make it easier

for tan to leave the club...

Makes no difference.

Debt to equity is a paper excercise. Like moving money from your left pocket to your right.

Makes no difference.

Debt to equity is a paper excercise. Like moving money from your left pocket to your right.

Saying that, Tan promised he would do it, so he bloody well should

Saying that, Tan promised he would do it, so he bloody well should

this is the bit i dont understand...why didnt he..

Saying that, Tan promised he would do it, so he bloody well should

this is the bit i dont understand...why didnt he..

Michael Isaacs is stalling on releasing his shares and Tan said he wants to wait until after the Malky court case in summer. I cant see what the latter has to do with anything really

Makes no difference.

Debt to equity is a paper excercise. Like moving money from your left pocket to your right.

Not true.

Makes a huge difference to how Tan can take his invested money out of the club.

Repayment of debt could, presumably, be demanded at relatively short notice and the club would be left in deep trouble.

Equity means he would either have to sell the shares and / or take dividends (assuming there are enough reserves to pay them) to recover or get a return on his cash.

Makes no difference.

Debt to equity is a paper excercise. Like moving money from your left pocket to your right.

Not true.

Makes a huge difference to how Tan can take his invested money out of the club.

Repayment of debt could, presumably, be demanded at relatively short notice and the club would be left in deep trouble.

Equity means he would either have to sell the shares and / or take dividends (assuming there are enough reserves to pay them) to recover or get a return on his cash.

The club has nothing to give if Tan demanded his loans back so in reality it makes no difference

Makes no difference.

Debt to equity is a paper excercise. Like moving money from your left pocket to your right.

Not true.

Makes a huge difference to how Tan can take his invested money out of the club.

Repayment of debt could, presumably, be demanded at relatively short notice and the club would be left in deep trouble.

Equity means he would either have to sell the shares and / or take dividends (assuming there are enough reserves to pay them) to recover or get a return on his cash.

The club has nothing to give if Tan demanded his loans back so in reality it makes no difference

The difference is he could, technically, put us in administration for non repayment of his debt, but not if he makes a long term commitment of converting to equity.

The conversion of debt to equity strengthens the balance sheet and de-risks the club.

Makes no difference.

Debt to equity is a paper excercise. Like moving money from your left pocket to your right.

Not true.

Makes a huge difference to how Tan can take his invested money out of the club.

Repayment of debt could, presumably, be demanded at relatively short notice and the club would be left in deep trouble.

Equity means he would either have to sell the shares and / or take dividends (assuming there are enough reserves to pay them) to recover or get a return on his cash.

The club has nothing to give if Tan demanded his loans back so in reality it makes no difference

The difference is he could, technically, put us in administration for non repayment of his debt, but not if he makes a long term commitment of converting to equity.

The conversion of debt to equity strengthens the balance sheet and de-risks the club.

Hes not gonna put us into admin though, he would get back hardly anything of his investment

Makes no difference.

Debt to equity is a paper excercise. Like moving money from your left pocket to your right.

Not true.

Makes a huge difference to how Tan can take his invested money out of the club.

Repayment of debt could, presumably, be demanded at relatively short notice and the club would be left in deep trouble.

Equity means he would either have to sell the shares and / or take dividends (assuming there are enough reserves to pay them) to recover or get a return on his cash.

The club has nothing to give if Tan demanded his loans back so in reality it makes no difference

You've got 4 year of parachute payments to the tune of £60m if you go down that he can pocket and the cash from selling the likes of Caulker & Marshall. Meanwhile he can cut your playing squad back to a bunch of kids in order to keep wages down so he can pocket any other income as well

Makes no difference.

Debt to equity is a paper excercise. Like moving money from your left pocket to your right.

Not true.

Makes a huge difference to how Tan can take his invested money out of the club.

Repayment of debt could, presumably, be demanded at relatively short notice and the club would be left in deep trouble.

Equity means he would either have to sell the shares and / or take dividends (assuming there are enough reserves to pay them) to recover or get a return on his cash.

The club has nothing to give if Tan demanded his loans back so in reality it makes no difference

You've got 4 year of parachute payments to the tune of £60m if you go down that he can pocket and the cash from selling the likes of Caulker & Marshall. Meanwhile he can cut your playing squad back to a bunch of kids in order to keep wages down so he can pocket any other income as well

Or he can continue to support the club and try and get us back to the PL.
Let's see what unfolds

Makes no difference.

Debt to equity is a paper excercise. Like moving money from your left pocket to your right.

Not true.

Makes a huge difference to how Tan can take his invested money out of the club.

Repayment of debt could, presumably, be demanded at relatively short notice and the club would be left in deep trouble.

Equity means he would either have to sell the shares and / or take dividends (assuming there are enough reserves to pay them) to recover or get a return on his cash.

The club has nothing to give if Tan demanded his loans back so in reality it makes no difference

You've got 4 year of parachute payments to the tune of £60m if you go down that he can pocket and the cash from selling the likes of Caulker & Marshall. Meanwhile he can cut your playing squad back to a bunch of kids in order to keep wages down so he can pocket any other income as well

Or he can continue to support the club and try and get us back to the PL.
Let's see what unfolds

Indeed.

Makes no difference.

Debt to equity is a paper excercise. Like moving money from your left pocket to your right.

Not true.

Makes a huge difference to how Tan can take his invested money out of the club.

Repayment of debt could, presumably, be demanded at relatively short notice and the club would be left in deep trouble.

Equity means he would either have to sell the shares and / or take dividends (assuming there are enough reserves to pay them) to recover or get a return on his cash.

The club has nothing to give if Tan demanded his loans back so in reality it makes no difference

The difference is he could, technically, put us in administration for non repayment of his debt, but not if he makes a long term commitment of converting to equity.

The conversion of debt to equity strengthens the balance sheet and de-risks the club.

Hes not gonna put us into admin though, he would get back hardly anything of his investment

I was just pointing out that your assertion that the conversion makes 'no difference' and is a 'paper exercise' is a glib dismissal of the different characteristics of debt and equity.

Equity is a long term commitment and I don't understand why he hasn't converted the debt, the excuses about legal actions don't ring true.

So why do you think he hasn't?

Makes no difference.

Debt to equity is a paper excercise. Like moving money from your left pocket to your right.

Not true.

Makes a huge difference to how Tan can take his invested money out of the club.

Repayment of debt could, presumably, be demanded at relatively short notice and the club would be left in deep trouble.

Equity means he would either have to sell the shares and / or take dividends (assuming there are enough reserves to pay them) to recover or get a return on his cash.

The club has nothing to give if Tan demanded his loans back so in reality it makes no difference

The difference is he could, technically, put us in administration for non repayment of his debt, but not if he makes a long term commitment of converting to equity.

The conversion of debt to equity strengthens the balance sheet and de-risks the club.

Hes not gonna put us into admin though, he would get back hardly anything of his investment

I was just pointing out that your assertion that the conversion makes 'no difference' and is a 'paper exercise' is a glib dismissal of the different characteristics of debt and equity.

Equity is a long term commitment and I don't understand why he hasn't converted the debt, the excuses about legal actions don't ring true.

So why do you think he hasn't?

I dont know, i agree though, the court action reason seems off