" VINCENT TAN'S CCFC SHAREHOLDING "

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

That's very interesting, Carl

Is Michael Isaacs staying for specific reason or is he simply seeing through his investment??

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

Isaacs won't sell for the price tan wants to pay ,he being greedy

Carl

All the share holdings as at the end of August 2014 are on the public record at Companies House from the Annual Return filed last week so I am assuming the person who told you the figures read the document.

Your percentages are correct re VT and MI who is currently holding on to his shares out of self interest in trying to get VT to up his offer for them.

Since the August 2013 position VT has been buying up substantial share holdings including those of PMG Estates/Paul Guy, Steve Borley/CMB , Simon Lim and Alan Whitely.

Sam Hammam ,s company Rudgwick retained a 1.5% interest as at the end of August but that may have changed since.

Keith

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

Which explains why he isn't converting debt to equity. Who would unless the whole club was his.

Cheers staff

From what I can see on Mr Vincent Tan's company website , his business interests are so wide reaching we really appear to be a minor part of his empire and from recent trends fairly small change to him in the bigger picture. We do not even register as one of his personal interests? So does the colour of our shirts lose him sleep at night?

Have a look at the Beraja.com website, I could have missed it but we don't seem to be mentioned.

Any thoughts?

From what I can see on Mr Vincent Tan's company website , his business interests are so wide reaching we really appear to be a minor part of his empire and from recent trends fairly small change to him in the bigger picture. We do not even register as one of his personal interests? So does the colour of our shirts lose him sleep at night?

Have a look at the Beraja.com website, I could have missed it but we don't seem to be mentioned.

Any thoughts?

That's what annoys me even more about the rebrand , he insists we play in red then he cant be bothered to turn up and watch us play in it

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

Whats new ? This has been the case for a long time now...

From what I can see on Mr Vincent Tan's company website , his business interests are so wide reaching we really appear to be a minor part of his empire and from recent trends fairly small change to him in the bigger picture. We do not even register as one of his personal interests? So does the colour of our shirts lose him sleep at night?

Have a look at the Beraja.com website, I could have missed it but we don't seem to be mentioned.

Any thoughts?

That's what annoys me even more about the rebrand , he insists we play in red then he cant be bothered to turn up and watch us play in it

Dammed if he does, dammed if he doesn't ?

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

Isaacs won't sell for the price tan wants to pay ,he being greedy

Which he's entitled to do, surely? If I was in his position, I'd milk Tan for every single penny.

Well, at least double the going rate

I thought he owned the Berjaya Group?

I thought he owned the Berjaya Group?

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

Which explains why he isn't converting debt to equity. Who would unless the whole club was his.

Tan is not changing debt to equity because he is a down right proven liar.TAN OUT.

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

Which explains why he isn't converting debt to equity. Who would unless the whole club was his.

Tan is not changing debt to equity because he is a down right proven liar.TAN OUT.

He doesn't own 100% of the club, why would he convert someone else's debt to equity? Would you pay your neighbour's mortgage?

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

Which explains why he isn't converting debt to equity. Who would unless the whole club was his.

Tan is not changing debt to equity because he is a down right proven liar.TAN OUT.

He doesn't own 100% of the club, why would he convert someone else's debt to equity? Would you pay your neighbour's mortgage?

Unless tan leaves without turning debt into equity you are a bit premature with your statement of lying!

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

Which explains why he isn't converting debt to equity. Who would unless the whole club was his.

Tan is not changing debt to equity because he is a down right proven liar.TAN OUT.

Pant_yr_awel bluebird...fitting square pegs into round holes with breath-taking expertise, as usual!

Motto: Even if it don't fit, just bash it until it does!

I thought tony clemo had £2 worth

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

Which explains why he isn't converting debt to equity. Who would unless the whole club was his.

Tan is not changing debt to equity because he is a down right proven liar.TAN OUT.

He doesn't own 100% of the club, why would he convert someone else's debt to equity? Would you pay your neighbour's mortgage?

You are either missing the point here or misunderstanding what debt and equity mean.

VT promised to convert what he is owed in debt (i.e. as a creditor of the company for loans he has made to it) into shares (i.e. equity).

He cannot make others do the same , so what do you mean by asking "why he would convert someone else`s debt to equity?"

Could you explain your comment?
He can buy up other people`s shares (which is equity to equity) and he can pay off debts due to others as creditors (which he has already done to a large extent) becoming their replacement as a creditor of the club.

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

Which explains why he isn't converting debt to equity. Who would unless the whole club was his.

It doesn`t "explain " it at all.Perhaps you could clarify why you think it does.

If VT converts his debt to equity , his %age ownership of the club goes up cosiderably as he currently owns about 87% of the 131m shares in issue. If VT has a current debt due to him of say £140m and he converts that to shares as he has promised , that would give him another 900m shares at the historical issue price of 15.69p. So he would then have 1012m of the 1031m in issue which is 98%

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

Which explains why he isn't converting debt to equity. Who would unless the whole club was his.

It doesn`t "explain " it at all.Perhaps you could clarify why you think it does.

If VT converts his debt to equity , his %age ownership of the club goes up cosiderably as he currently owns about 87% of the 131m shares in issue. If VT has a current debt due to him of say £140m and he converts that to shares as he has promised , that would give him another 900m shares at the historical issue price of 15.69p. So he would then have 1012m of the 1031m in issue which is 98%

Would this sudden increase in shares threaten the share price be in up or down?

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

Which explains why he isn't converting debt to equity. Who would unless the whole club was his.

It doesn`t "explain " it at all.Perhaps you could clarify why you think it does.

If VT converts his debt to equity , his %age ownership of the club goes up cosiderably as he currently owns about 87% of the 131m shares in issue. If VT has a current debt due to him of say £140m and he converts that to shares as he has promised , that would give him another 900m shares at the historical issue price of 15.69p. So he would then have 1012m of the 1031m in issue which is 98%

but for this to happen Isaacs would have to agree as there would have to be new shares issued which would totally devalue his shareholding

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

Which explains why he isn't converting debt to equity. Who would unless the whole club was his.

It doesn`t "explain " it at all.Perhaps you could clarify why you think it does.

If VT converts his debt to equity , his %age ownership of the club goes up cosiderably as he currently owns about 87% of the 131m shares in issue. If VT has a current debt due to him of say £140m and he converts that to shares as he has promised , that would give him another 900m shares at the historical issue price of 15.69p. So he would then have 1012m of the 1031m in issue which is 98%

Would this sudden increase in shares threaten the share price be in up or down?

down by a massive amount Isaacs agree to sell then went back on his word

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

Which explains why he isn't converting debt to equity. Who would unless the whole club was his.

It doesn`t "explain " it at all.Perhaps you could clarify why you think it does.

If VT converts his debt to equity , his %age ownership of the club goes up cosiderably as he currently owns about 87% of the 131m shares in issue. If VT has a current debt due to him of say £140m and he converts that to shares as he has promised , that would give him another 900m shares at the historical issue price of 15.69p. So he would then have 1012m of the 1031m in issue which is 98%

Would this sudden increase in shares threaten the share price be in up or down?

Won`t threaten the share price at all , except for the smaller shareholders as the person holding 98% of them will control the price paid if he sells them on. The shares of minority shareholders are currently effectively of no value as no-one wants to buy them (other than perhaps VT)

I heard this week that Vincent Tan now has just over 87% of the shares.

Michael Issac is the 2nd largest shareholder with just over 8%.

Between the two they have 95-96% of the shares.

Which explains why he isn't converting debt to equity. Who would unless the whole club was his.

It doesn`t "explain " it at all.Perhaps you could clarify why you think it does.

If VT converts his debt to equity , his %age ownership of the club goes up cosiderably as he currently owns about 87% of the 131m shares in issue. If VT has a current debt due to him of say £140m and he converts that to shares as he has promised , that would give him another 900m shares at the historical issue price of 15.69p. So he would then have 1012m of the 1031m in issue which is 98%

but for this to happen Isaacs would have to agree as there would have to be new shares issued which would totally devalue his shareholding

There is no need for M Isaacs to agree at all - he doesn`t have anywhere near enough shares to block an extraordinary resolution at an EGM to issue the new shares as only over 75% is needed. A formal meeting would have to be called , but VT already has more than enough shares to vote it through.

Fascinating stuff (again) from Keith 'ccfcsince62' and yet another example of how some of the more agenda-filled on here simply 'latch on' to a phrase or saying (in this case 'debt-to-equity') without fully understanding what is really happening and why!

Have to admit I didn't appreciate exactly what 'debt-to-equity' meant, but then again I didn't use it as yet another convenient tool for negative ends!