debt to equity

why are so called knowledgable fans on here so nieve on making this such a big issue .
they have been so vioceifferous on this matter but surely don't realise how daft they have been
let me explain
if tan had converted our debt to equity when they first demanded he did some many many months if not years ago we would still be in debt today as we are not self suffiecent /funding yet
maybe we should give tan more credit as a business man than we are giving him in this matter.
also there is the little matter of the fair play rules that we have to adhere to
imo we should let tan get on with it

Let's let Tan rack up more debt to the club Steve.

It is not about people like myself being vociferous, it is about Tan keeping to a pledge he made 2 and a half years ago.

Tan said he would concert his debt to equity and make the club 'virtually debt free'.

That was his pledge, not a demand of the fans, I want this club to be sustainable on its on income streams.

But such is the good businessman that you say Tan is, that more than four years after his initial investment and more than two years of his total control, our debt is higher than it has ever been, the debt is growing and we are in a worse position than we were financially than when he arrived.

Good businessman he may be but football is not the same as any of his other businesses.

Let's let Tan rack up more debt to the club Steve.

It is not about people like myself being vociferous, it is about Tan keeping to a pledge he made 2 and a half years ago.

Tan said he would concert his debt to equity and make the club 'virtually debt free'.

That was his pledge, not a demand of the fans, I want this club to be sustainable on its on income streams.

But such is the good businessman that you say Tan is, that more than four years after his initial investment and more than two years of his total control, our debt is higher than it has ever been, the debt is growing and we are in a worse position than we were financially than when he arrived.

Good businessman he may be but football is not the same as any of his other businesses.

Carl maybe not same as other businesses but don't you think there is a reason for not converting? As we all know we cannot keep acumilating debt without consequences and tan knows as well ! So maybe just maybe tan as other plans because at end day everyone knows including tan that situation as it stands is not sustainable!

Let's let Tan rack up more debt to the club Steve.

It is not about people like myself being vociferous, it is about Tan keeping to a pledge he made 2 and a half years ago.

Tan said he would concert his debt to equity and make the club 'virtually debt free'.

That was his pledge, not a demand of the fans, I want this club to be sustainable on its on income streams.

But such is the good businessman that you say Tan is, that more than four years after his initial investment and more than two years of his total control, our debt is higher than it has ever been, the debt is growing and we are in a worse position than we were financially than when he arrived.

Good businessman he may be but football is not the same as any of his other businesses.

Carl maybe not same as other businesses but don't you think there is a reason for not converting? As we all know we cannot keep acumilating debt without consequences and tan knows as well ! So maybe just maybe tan as other plans because at end day everyone knows including tan that situation as it stands is not sustainable!

Allan,

If Tan came out and guaranteed the debt that he is stacking up as his debt and not the clubs then I would be happier with the situation but we don't know his plans other than what he said about converting but has yet to do so.

Let's let Tan rack up more debt to the club Steve.

It is not about people like myself being vociferous, it is about Tan keeping to a pledge he made 2 and a half years ago.

Tan said he would concert his debt to equity and make the club 'virtually debt free'.

That was his pledge, not a demand of the fans, I want this club to be sustainable on its on income streams.

But such is the good businessman that you say Tan is, that more than four years after his initial investment and more than two years of his total control, our debt is higher than it has ever been, the debt is growing and we are in a worse position than we were financially than when he arrived.

Good businessman he may be but football is not the same as any of his other businesses.

Carl maybe not same as other businesses but don't you think there is a reason for not converting? As we all know we cannot keep acumilating debt without consequences and tan knows as well ! So maybe just maybe tan as other plans because at end day everyone knows including tan that situation as it stands is not sustainable!

Allan,

If Tan came out and guaranteed the debt that he is stacking up as his debt and not the clubs then I would be happier with the situation but we don't know his plans other than what he said about converting but has yet to do so.

Carl I've put on numerous response in regards of debt to equity that promise was made on the basis we stayed in the premier league simple as that

The club is worth a fraction of what it was in the premier league and it's absolute madness to think anyone would convert an approximate debt of £170m into shares of a club worth maybe £40m it's simply not going to happen as tan would never get his moeny back ever, if we go back up the club will be worth more and he will be able to convert and sell and possibly get nearly all his money back until then it's not happenind

Let's let Tan rack up more debt to the club Steve.

It is not about people like myself being vociferous, it is about Tan keeping to a pledge he made 2 and a half years ago.

Tan said he would concert his debt to equity and make the club 'virtually debt free'.

That was his pledge, not a demand of the fans, I want this club to be sustainable on its on income streams.

But such is the good businessman that you say Tan is, that more than four years after his initial investment and more than two years of his total control, our debt is higher than it has ever been, the debt is growing and we are in a worse position than we were financially than when he arrived.

Good businessman he may be but football is not the same as any of his other businesses.

Carl maybe not same as other businesses but don't you think there is a reason for not converting? As we all know we cannot keep acumilating debt without consequences and tan knows as well ! So maybe just maybe tan as other plans because at end day everyone knows including tan that situation as it stands is not sustainable!

Allan,

If Tan came out and guaranteed the debt that he is stacking up as his debt and not the clubs then I would be happier with the situation but we don't know his plans other than what he said about converting but has yet to do so.

Carl I've put on numerous response in regards of debt to equity that promise was made on the basis we stayed in the premier league simple as that

The club is worth a fraction of what it was in the premier league and it's absolute madness to think anyone would convert an approximate debt of £170m into shares of a club worth maybe £40m it's simply not going to happen as tan would never get his moeny back ever, if we go back up the club will be worth more and he will be able to convert and sell and possibly get nearly all his money back until then it's not happenind

Carl I suspect there is a lot we don't know regarding what tan has planned or intends to do regarding the debt! Administration is def not on agenda so must have something up his sleeve?

The promise of converting debt to equity and making the club debt free has never been made as conditional upon the club staying in the Premier -please show me where it has

And could you please explain your point about the lack of conversion being needed because of the FFP Rules. That has not been the case since the rules came into operation and your comment is a new one on me and it appears everyone else that has attended the numerous conferences and debates on that topic I have attended and spoken at.

Never going to happen tan must be laughing his bollocks off with the amount of money the club now owes him it's going to become messy soon best scenario would be that he sells up tomorrow.

I never understand the hysteria over this...

We were hours away from a winding up order for £2 million.

We owe one person £120 million with about £40 million of assets. I am well beyond caring

The promise of converting debt to equity and making the club debt free has never been made as conditional upon the club staying in the Premier -please show me where it has

And could you please explain your point about the lack of conversion being needed because of the FFP Rules. That has not been the case since the rules came into operation and your comment is a new one on me and it appears everyone else that has attended the numerous conferences and debates on that topic I have attended and spoken at.

Likewise there was never a promise of the timescale on set to equity

I am just pointing out the obvious here and that is why would someone pay £170m plus in total investments of around £15m for a club worth no more than £40m

That's like you or me going out and buying an Astra for £100k knowing it's only worth £10k absolute madness

I will say it again
imo tan will turn debt to equity when we are self sufficient
so wether he gets the equity for 50 mill 100 mill 200 mill its still only the same equity
I notice in one of his last comments he said I have made mistakes but have learnt from them and now know how to run a football club and make a profit that suggests to me that he is working to reduce our running costs to within our income stream thus enabling him to turn debt to equity
and giving ccfc the best chance of staying out of debt

This was the so called guarantee that certain fans ( you know who you are) told us why they were still supporting Tan. It's time for these fans who had plenty to say and influence others at the time now to admit that they have been duped.

He will convert when Michael Issacs stops being downright greedy and sells VT his shares, just why anyone thinks VT is going to convert debt to equity when he does not own all of CCFC are deluded, why would he put money in Issacs pocket

I never understand the hysteria over this

We were hours away from a winding up order for £2 million.

We owe one person £120 million with about £40 million of assets. I am well beyond caring

That's been my stance since day one! What will be will be! we cant do nothing regarding the debt so no point worrying about it, or did people worry as much when so close to be wound up? Far more perilous then than it is now!

I never understand the hysteria over this...

We were hours away from a winding up order for £2 million.

We owe one person £120 million with about £40 million of assets. I am well beyond caring

I care. I care a great deal.

While the money is owed to Vincent Tan as a creditor he (or his estate should he die) can claim the money back from the club which it will not be able to pay and it will have to enter some form of formal insolvency procedure.

If he honours his often made promise to convert his debt to equity , then there is no debt to claim back (he can still sell his shares for personal gain but the cash would then come from the purchaser not the club) and the club would be in a far healthier financial position and certainly far less in risk of being wound up.

The promise of converting debt to equity and making the club debt free has never been made as conditional upon the club staying in the Premier -please show me where it has

And could you please explain your point about the lack of conversion being needed because of the FFP Rules. That has not been the case since the rules came into operation and your comment is a new one on me and it appears everyone else that has attended the numerous conferences and debates on that topic I have attended and spoken at.

Likewise there was never a promise of the timescale on set to equity

BUT IT WAS YOU WHO SAID THAT THE CONVERSION WAS CONDITIONAL UPON STAYING IN THE PREMIER LEAGUE. IT WASN`T. DO YOU AGREE?

I am just pointing out the obvious here and that is why would someone pay £170m plus in total investments of around £15m for a club worth no more than £40m

SORRY BUT THAT SENTENCE SIMPLY DOESN`T MAKE SENSE - WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "£170M PLUS IN TOTAL INVESTMENTS OF £15M?". VINCENT TAN HAS PUT IN WHATEVER MONEY HE HAS (WHETHER IT IS £100M OR £170M OR SOME OTHER FIGURE IS UNCLEAR AS HE AND THE CLUB BOARD KEEP CHANGING THE FIGURE THEY QUOTE) AS LOANS. SO WHAT IS THE "OBVIOUS" YOU ARE POINTING OUT?

That's like you or me going out and buying an Astra for £100k knowing it's only worth £10k absolute madness

I will say it again
imo tan will turn debt to equity when we are self sufficient
so wether he gets the equity for 50 mill 100 mill 200 mill its still only the same equity
I notice in one of his last comments he said I have made mistakes but have learnt from them and now know how to run a football club and make a profit that suggests to me that he is working to reduce our running costs to within our income stream thus enabling him to turn debt to equity
and giving ccfc the best chance of staying out of debt

I apologise if my reply seems rude but , based upon your post above ,you clearly don`t understand the term "equity".

What do you mean by if he "gets the equity for 50m , 100m" etc? Equity in the context being discussed is the shareholding in Cardiff City Football Club (Holdings) Limited which owns all the shares in the football club. Vincent Tan doesn`t have to "get" shares in the sense of paying for them , he merely converts what he is already owed in debt to newly issued shares - no cash payment involved.

I agree , based upon a recent comment made by both the club Chairman and its General Manager , that the club is looking to reduce running costs and that can only be a good thing as it will mean that we have a chance of only a small loss this season to comply with the FFP rules. However , a large proportion of the net cash spend (we have recovered a lot of what we spent last season on players from subsequent sales) in the last 2 years has been on unnecessary items which were just vanity projects of VT - the Ninian Stand extension and the preliminiaries for the new training ground. This was well over £10m that could have been better spent elsewhere or not spent at all.

My guess is that Tan just doesnt want to now.

Looking at it from his crazy minds point of you he could just be thinking, wait a minute they all (vast majority) accepted this for all this investement yet all ive got is abuse and protests as soon as the clubs isnt in the prem anymore, F em.

I know If i was him I certainly wouldnt be going it, is it in his interest to do it?

I will say it again
imo tan will turn debt to equity when we are self sufficient
so wether he gets the equity for 50 mill 100 mill 200 mill its still only the same equity
I notice in one of his last comments he said I have made mistakes but have learnt from them and now know how to run a football club and make a profit that suggests to me that he is working to reduce our running costs to within our income stream thus enabling him to turn debt to equity
and giving ccfc the best chance of staying out of debt

I apologise if my reply seems rude but , based upon your post above ,you clearly don`t understand the term "equity".

What do you mean by if he "gets the equity for 50m , 100m" etc? Equity in the context being discussed is the shareholding in Cardiff City Football Club (Holdings) Limited which owns all the shares in the football club. Vincent Tan doesn`t have to "get" shares in the sense of paying for them , he merely converts what he is already owed in debt to newly issued shares - no cash payment involved.

I agree , based upon a recent comment made by both the club Chairman and its General Manager , that the club is looking to reduce running costs and that can only be a good thing as it will mean that we have a chance of only a small loss this season to comply with the FFP rules. However , a large proportion of the net cash spend (we have recovered a lot of what we spent last season on players from subsequent sales) in the last 2 years has been on unnecessary items which were just vanity projects of VT - the Ninian Stand extension and the preliminiaries for the new training ground. This was well over £10m that could have been better spent elsewhere or not spent at all.

Vanity projects indeed. A bit like putting an extension on your house. Definitely puts up the value when time comes to sell.

I will say it again
imo tan will turn debt to equity when we are self sufficient
so wether he gets the equity for 50 mill 100 mill 200 mill its still only the same equity
I notice in one of his last comments he said I have made mistakes but have learnt from them and now know how to run a football club and make a profit that suggests to me that he is working to reduce our running costs to within our income stream thus enabling him to turn debt to equity
and giving ccfc the best chance of staying out of debt

I apologise if my reply seems rude but , based upon your post above ,you clearly don`t understand the term "equity".

What do you mean by if he "gets the equity for 50m , 100m" etc? Equity in the context being discussed is the shareholding in Cardiff City Football Club (Holdings) Limited which owns all the shares in the football club. Vincent Tan doesn`t have to "get" shares in the sense of paying for them , he merely converts what he is already owed in debt to newly issued shares - no cash payment involved.

I agree , based upon a recent comment made by both the club Chairman and its General Manager , that the club is looking to reduce running costs and that can only be a good thing as it will mean that we have a chance of only a small loss this season to comply with the FFP rules. However , a large proportion of the net cash spend (we have recovered a lot of what we spent last season on players from subsequent sales) in the last 2 years has been on unnecessary items which were just vanity projects of VT - the Ninian Stand extension and the preliminiaries for the new training ground. This was well over £10m that could have been better spent elsewhere or not spent at all.

Vanity projects indeed. A bit like putting an extension on your house. Definitely puts up the value when time comes to sell.

Well the UK based directors of the club agree it was a vanity project.

Even if full every week with fans paying full rates , the club itself estimates that it will take at least 6 years to pay for the cost of the Ninian extension. At present , it isn`t even full enough to pay for the costs of completing its fit out or providing full stewarding costs etc so it is only open to a very limited extent in its centre blocks and is a cost to the club rather than a benefit.
Last season at Premier League level we couldn`t (quite) fill a 27,500 capacity stadium so there is good reason to believe that we wouldn`t fill a 34,000 capacity one if and when we got promoted again.

As for the training ground project , we had a reasonable one already being rented at the Vale which Gerald Leeke had agreed to extend to suit the club`s requirements for use of more pitches. Instead we went for a project at a high capital cost which then would have cost far more to run than the saving in rent payments due to maintenance and staffing costs etc.

He will convert when Michael Issacs stops being downright greedy and sells VT his shares, just why anyone thinks VT is going to convert debt to equity when he does not own all of CCFC are deluded, why would he put money in Issacs pocket

^^^^^^^^
This
Part of the agreement for debt to equity amongst tan the directors and major shareholders was that all those people would sell their shares to tan for 15.9 pence or whatever the original share price was.
All agreed and the issacs welched on the deal at the last minute and dident sell them.
So realistically tan could say that the shareholders have not kept their end of the bargain to enable the debt to equity to take place.
All that aside I don't think it will ever happen whilst we are in the championship

He will convert when Michael Issacs stops being downright greedy and sells VT his shares, just why anyone thinks VT is going to convert debt to equity when he does not own all of CCFC are deluded, why would he put money in Issacs pocket

^^^^^^^^
This
Part of the agreement for debt to equity amongst tan the directors and major shareholders was that all those people would sell their shares to tan for 15.9 pence or whatever the original share price was.
All agreed and the issacs welched on the deal at the last minute and dident sell them.
So realistically tan could say that the shareholders have not kept their end of the bargain to enable the debt to equity to take place.
All that aside I don't think it will ever happen whilst we are in the championship

Steve

I wouldnt trust Michael Isaacs as far as I could throw him , and that`s not very far these days at my advanced age! Neither would any professional in the city that I have spoken to - it would seem he has quite a reputation for failing to stick to his promises.

Is he also the "leak" of club information out to messageboards as and when it suits him?

He will convert when Michael Issacs stops being downright greedy and sells VT his shares, just why anyone thinks VT is going to convert debt to equity when he does not own all of CCFC are deluded, why would he put money in Issacs pocket

^^^^^^^^
This
Part of the agreement for debt to equity amongst tan the directors and major shareholders was that all those people would sell their shares to tan for 15.9 pence or whatever the original share price was.
All agreed and the issacs welched on the deal at the last minute and dident sell them.
So realistically tan could say that the shareholders have not kept their end of the bargain to enable the debt to equity to take place.
All that aside I don't think it will ever happen whilst we are in the championship

Isaacs is a greedy fucker ,he tucked up a few of my friends on different projects he thinks cause he's got money he can do what he wants

He will convert when Michael Issacs stops being downright greedy and sells VT his shares, just why anyone thinks VT is going to convert debt to equity when he does not own all of CCFC are deluded, why would he put money in Issacs pocket

^^^^^^^^
This
Part of the agreement for debt to equity amongst tan the directors and major shareholders was that all those people would sell their shares to tan for 15.9 pence or whatever the original share price was.
All agreed and the issacs welched on the deal at the last minute and dident sell them.
So realistically tan could say that the shareholders have not kept their end of the bargain to enable the debt to equity to take place.
All that aside I don't think it will ever happen whilst we are in the championship

Steve

I wouldnt trust Michael Isaacs as far as I could throw him , and that`s not very far these days at my advanced age! Neither would any professional in the city that I have spoken to - it would seem he has quite a reputation for failing to stick to his promises.

Is he also the "leak" of club information out to messageboards as and when it suits him?

Keith

Yes he does leak information to the boards but the reality is he has no real dealings with the day to day running of the club but his ultimate aim is the chairmanship and he won't mind who he steps on to get there.
Been in tans ear about sacking Mehmet over the ole appointment and no prizes for guessing who he believes should replace mehmet

He will convert when Michael Issacs stops being downright greedy and sells VT his shares, just why anyone thinks VT is going to convert debt to equity when he does not own all of CCFC are deluded, why would he put money in Issacs pocket

^^^^^^^^
This
Part of the agreement for debt to equity amongst tan the directors and major shareholders was that all those people would sell their shares to tan for 15.9 pence or whatever the original share price was.
All agreed and the issacs welched on the deal at the last minute and dident sell them.
So realistically tan could say that the shareholders have not kept their end of the bargain to enable the debt to equity to take place.
All that aside I don't think it will ever happen whilst we are in the championship

Steve

I wouldnt trust Michael Isaacs as far as I could throw him , and that`s not very far these days at my advanced age! Neither would any professional in the city that I have spoken to - it would seem he has quite a reputation for failing to stick to his promises.

Is he also the "leak" of club information out to messageboards as and when it suits him?

Keith

Yes he does leak information to the boards but the reality is he has no real dealings with the day to day running of the club but his ultimate aim is the chairmanship and he won't mind who he steps on to get there.
Been in tans ear about sacking Mehmet over the ole appointment and no prizes for guessing who he believes should replace mehmet

That is what I amhearing and God save us if he achieves it.

The promise of converting debt to equity and making the club debt free has never been made as conditional upon the club staying in the Premier -please show me where it has

And could you please explain your point about the lack of conversion being needed because of the FFP Rules. That has not been the case since the rules came into operation and your comment is a new one on me and it appears everyone else that has attended the numerous conferences and debates on that topic I have attended and spoken at.

Likewise there was never a promise of the timescale on set to equity

BUT IT WAS YOU WHO SAID THAT THE CONVERSION WAS CONDITIONAL UPON STAYING IN THE PREMIER LEAGUE. IT WASN`T. DO YOU AGREE?

I am just pointing out the obvious here and that is why would someone pay £170m plus in total investments of around £15m for a club worth no more than £40m

SORRY BUT THAT SENTENCE SIMPLY DOESN`T MAKE SENSE - WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "£170M PLUS IN TOTAL INVESTMENTS OF £15M?". VINCENT TAN HAS PUT IN WHATEVER MONEY HE HAS (WHETHER IT IS £100M OR £170M OR SOME OTHER FIGURE IS UNCLEAR AS HE AND THE CLUB BOARD KEEP CHANGING THE FIGURE THEY QUOTE) AS LOANS. SO WHAT IS THE "OBVIOUS" YOU ARE POINTING OUT?

That's like you or me going out and buying an Astra for £100k knowing it's only worth £10k absolute madness

Keith

My point was if you were owed 170m in loans and you were converting them to equity in a business worth maybe £50m max you would in essence be writing off over £120m which is why he'll never convert the whole amount yet, coupled with the fact he doesn't own the club fully at the minute it would be madness

He paid £6m for 42% of city after the play off final since then he's spent around £15m buying up more and has around 88% of the shares now if the figures banded about are correct that would mean he's paid around £21m for 90% of the club meaning he has 10% to buy up that 10% is worth £2.1m in theory and I believe that to be close to what e offered isaacs for the remaining shares

That would mean the club is effectively worth £23.2m

So the question once again is why would he convert £170m (if correct) into shares into a club worth £23.2m??

I know the club value can and will change etc and that is why I belive if we get promoted and have vastly increased revenues again then the net worth of the club will be far higher than now, this would make conversion more viable and tan could recoup his money

Al fayed was owed £100m plus by Fulham eventually he wrote that debt off and sold not sure what for but I doubt he got what he had ploughed in back

I see tan doing similar if we get promoted writing the loans off and selling up for almost his money back if he can

I just don't see why he would convert the loans owed when he could effectively sell his share in city and then chase the club for the reported £170m he's owed

The promise of converting debt to equity and making the club debt free has never been made as conditional upon the club staying in the Premier -please show me where it has

And could you please explain your point about the lack of conversion being needed because of the FFP Rules. That has not been the case since the rules came into operation and your comment is a new one on me and it appears everyone else that has attended the numerous conferences and debates on that topic I have attended and spoken at.

Likewise there was never a promise of the timescale on set to equity

BUT IT WAS YOU WHO SAID THAT THE CONVERSION WAS CONDITIONAL UPON STAYING IN THE PREMIER LEAGUE. IT WASN`T. DO YOU AGREE?

I am just pointing out the obvious here and that is why would someone pay £170m plus in total investments of around £15m for a club worth no more than £40m

SORRY BUT THAT SENTENCE SIMPLY DOESN`T MAKE SENSE - WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "£170M PLUS IN TOTAL INVESTMENTS OF £15M?". VINCENT TAN HAS PUT IN WHATEVER MONEY HE HAS (WHETHER IT IS £100M OR £170M OR SOME OTHER FIGURE IS UNCLEAR AS HE AND THE CLUB BOARD KEEP CHANGING THE FIGURE THEY QUOTE) AS LOANS. SO WHAT IS THE "OBVIOUS" YOU ARE POINTING OUT?

That's like you or me going out and buying an Astra for £100k knowing it's only worth £10k absolute madness

Keith

My point was if you were owed 170m in loans and you were converting them to equity in a business worth maybe £50m max you would in essence be writing off over £120m which is why he'll never convert the whole amount yet, coupled with the fact he doesn't own the club fully at the minute it would be madness

He paid £6m for 42% of city after the play off final since then he's spent around £15m buying up more and has around 88% of the shares now if the figures banded about are correct that would mean he's paid around £21m for 90% of the club meaning he has 10% to buy up that 10% is worth £2.1m in theory and I believe that to be close to what e offered isaacs for the remaining shares

That would mean the club is effectively worth £23.2m

So the question once again is why would he convert £170m (if correct) into shares into a club worth £23.2m??

I know the club value can and will change etc and that is why I belive if we get promoted and have vastly increased revenues again then the net worth of the club will be far higher than now, this would make conversion more viable and tan could recoup his money

Al fayed was owed £100m plus by Fulham eventually he wrote that debt off and sold not sure what for but I doubt he got what he had ploughed in back

I see tan doing similar if we get promoted writing the loans off and selling up for almost his money back if he can

I just don't see why he would convert the loans owed when he could effectively sell his share in city and then chase the club for the reported £170m he's owed

I can see Tan having to write off most of this loan if he wants to get away.

In the beginning Tan was going to invest £100m into the club and convert that into equity. The investment broke down into £40m already invested, money for the new stand, money for a training facility and a budget to get us promoted to the premier. Indeed there was no timeline to the conversion to equity but it was clear this might happen once established in the premier. That made sense.

Well we are not established in the premier, don't look like we will be for quite a while now and the debt is nearly double the original £100m. Why oh why would Tan convert. If he came out with the truth people might accept him a bit more but he comes up with excuses like Langston, Malky and now Isaacs.

If Tan wants out he is going to write most of it off like Al Fayad did at Fulham. Even if we get back into the premier its going to be a large chunk written off.

What's so disgraceful is for us to be in the position we are (average championship club) considering the millions we have spent on players and our structure. You can't blame tan for being pissed off but its been money pissed down the drain due to poor management, from tan himself and the football managers employed. Slade was a ridiculous choice and will continue the slide IMO.

What an amazing opportunity wasted.

What's so disgraceful is for us to be in the position we are (average championship club) considering the millions we have spent on players and our structure. You can't blame tan for being pissed off but its been money pissed down the drain due to poor management, from tan himself and the football managers employed. Slade was a ridiculous choice and will continue the slide IMO.

What an amazing opportunity wasted.

Spot on.

What's so disgraceful is for us to be in the position we are (average championship club) considering the millions we have spent on players and our structure. You can't blame tan for being pissed off but its been money pissed down the drain due to poor management, from tan himself and the football managers employed. Slade was a ridiculous choice and will continue the slide IMO.

What an amazing opportunity wasted.

Can't argue with that comment. Bang on the money!