WHAT QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ASKED IN THE MEETING?

Keep it sensible, what questions should be asked on Thursday?

Aside the obvious shirt and badge issue which will obviously be a main priority - I think high on the list should be the seating arrangements in the ground. Recently it was said chelsea are looking at changing things around to put all the singers etc together and closer to the away fans to create a better atmosphere and we should do the same. Either swap the away toward the canton end or change the family stand with the canton and bring back the 'grange end'. This way we'd have a constant back and forth singing and abuse with the opposing fans which you need for an atmosphere! They shouldn't be worried about trouble there's still enough segregation etc. and these modern stadiums are designed to deal with these problems.

Posted this in another thread but I think this should be asked:

"Vincent tan has recently said that us fans haven't kept our side of the deal with regards to the rebrand. One of the conditions, and most important to a lot of people was the conversion of debt to equity which still hasn't happened. does Vincent tan still plan on converting debt to equity? If not will he return us to blue and apologise for not keeping to his part of the deal?"

As stated also the seating arrangements, pricing, over zealous stewards, why so much cost cutting...

What are their thoughts on the serious threat of the NoBlueNoRenew campaign?

Questions? There's only 1,well a demand more than a question. We want our home shirts blue. That's it

Debt to equity - when are you going to do the honourable thing and keep to your promise Mr Tan?

Posted this in another thread but I think this should be asked:

"Vincent tan has recently said that us fans haven't kept our side of the deal with regards to the rebrand. One of the conditions, and most important to a lot of people was the conversion of debt to equity which still hasn't happened. does Vincent tan still plan on converting debt to equity? If not will he return us to blue and apologise for not keeping to his part of the deal?"

As stated also the seating arrangements, pricing, over zealous stewards, why so much cost cutting...

He cannot go ahead with the debt to equity deal as Mike Issacs is still owns 11% shares, the deal was that tan would buy his shares but Mike went back on the deal... Well thats what I've been informed.

Posted this in another thread but I think this should be asked:

"Vincent tan has recently said that us fans haven't kept our side of the deal with regards to the rebrand. One of the conditions, and most important to a lot of people was the conversion of debt to equity which still hasn't happened. does Vincent tan still plan on converting debt to equity? If not will he return us to blue and apologise for not keeping to his part of the deal?"

As stated also the seating arrangements, pricing, over zealous stewards, why so much cost cutting...

He cannot go ahead with the debt to equity deal as Mike Issacs is still owns 11% shares, the deal was that tan would buy his shares but Mike went back on the deal... Well thats what I've been informed.

Thats just Tan changing the goalpost. It was mean't to happen after the Malky issue was solved.

Posted this in another thread but I think this should be asked:

"Vincent tan has recently said that us fans haven't kept our side of the deal with regards to the rebrand. One of the conditions, and most important to a lot of people was the conversion of debt to equity which still hasn't happened. does Vincent tan still plan on converting debt to equity? If not will he return us to blue and apologise for not keeping to his part of the deal?"

As stated also the seating arrangements, pricing, over zealous stewards, why so much cost cutting...

He cannot go ahead with the debt to equity deal as Mike Issacs is still owns 11% shares, the deal was that tan would buy his shares but Mike went back on the deal... Well thats what I've been informed.

Thats just Tan changing the goalpost. It was mean't to happen after the Malky issue was solved.

its Isaacs changing them but tan should force him to sell which he could do

Posted this in another thread but I think this should be asked:

"Vincent tan has recently said that us fans haven't kept our side of the deal with regards to the rebrand. One of the conditions, and most important to a lot of people was the conversion of debt to equity which still hasn't happened. does Vincent tan still plan on converting debt to equity? If not will he return us to blue and apologise for not keeping to his part of the deal?"

As stated also the seating arrangements, pricing, over zealous stewards, why so much cost cutting...

He cannot go ahead with the debt to equity deal as Mike Issacs is still owns 11% shares, the deal was that tan would buy his shares but Mike went back on the deal... Well thats what I've been informed.

Thats just Tan changing the goalpost. It was mean't to happen after the Malky issue was solved.

its Isaacs changing them but tan should force him to sell which he could do

Good point that Wez. I think Tan could force him to sell so why has he not.

Posted this in another thread but I think this should be asked:

"Vincent tan has recently said that us fans haven't kept our side of the deal with regards to the rebrand. One of the conditions, and most important to a lot of people was the conversion of debt to equity which still hasn't happened. does Vincent tan still plan on converting debt to equity? If not will he return us to blue and apologise for not keeping to his part of the deal?"

As stated also the seating arrangements, pricing, over zealous stewards, why so much cost cutting...

He cannot go ahead with the debt to equity deal as Mike Issacs is still owns 11% shares, the deal was that tan would buy his shares but Mike went back on the deal... Well thats what I've been informed.

Thats just Tan changing the goalpost. It was mean't to happen after the Malky issue was solved.

its Isaacs changing them but tan should force him to sell which he could do

Good point that Wez. I think Tan could force him to sell so why has he not.

that should be asked in the meeting

If I were to ask a question it would be as follows.....

Q. In my opinion we have a common interest. VT would like a profit on his investment. As supporters we would like our history restored and, as a whole, we all want success. Berjaya of course means "success" is Malay. How do we achieve this whilst, at the same time, ensuring that VT does not appear to be backing down. I ask this as, it is my understanding of Malaysian Culture, that it is not good to be seen to be backing down.

When are you leaving mr Tan?

Back to blue, badge, atmosphere i.e. Swapping canton and family stand, stewarding, no ambition in managerial or player appointments, why are the best players being sold/released.

even with the change back to blue fans will still leave
the standard of football is shocking slade was not the right man for the job
a complete overall is required

I believe there is only really one question to be asked. Return to blue. If you start asking for loads of things like changing ends, new manager etc then the club could say we have listened and we will switch the canton and family but stay in red which is utterly pointless at the moment. Change to blue atmosphere changes in ground around club, I am sure players will get a lift and results will come. The other issues are just stuff that every club winges about and can be dealt with at a later date. For the club to progress it has to play in its traditional colours and this has been blatantly obvious from pretty much the first game we played in red where the atmosphere was dire and crowd confused. The issues with kit ruined promotion season for me and this should have been possibly greatest season in clubs recent history.

The only subject discussed should be the return to our traditional colours and badge. Any other subject can wait for other times. If the subject is changed to anything else by Tan's men then somebody in the meeting should change it back. The media must have only one thing to report and that is the passion and determination of Cardiff City fans for a return to the clubs traditional colours.

The only subject discussed should be the return to our traditional colours and badge. Any other subject can wait for other times. If the subject is changed to anything else by Tan's men then somebody in the meeting should change it back. The media must have only one thing to report and that is the passion and determination of Cardiff City fans for a return to the clubs traditional colours.

Agree 100%

I have big concerns about the team/squad and the direction it is taking.

We have players such as guerra who has a proven track record in one of the strongest leagues in the world, going toe to toe with the likes of ronaldo, bale, messi etc etc ... yet deemed not good enough for Cardiff in the championship. Not even good enough for a CHANCE .... while we are linked to players that at the same age, spent most of their time in lower leagues than the championship.

Bergstaller ....He hasnt so much as been considered and yet is a full international for a side ranked 23rd ... which is above Wales and Iceland.

Dehli has been done to death .... but he has signed for a club also playing at a higher level than we are.

Morrison .... prem sides want him but he isnt good enough for us??

Fabio, Brazil international and Ex Man U being sidelined and we go after a milwall player ... no disrespect to the guy but does he have the same pedigree?? A lot is made of Fabios defensive frailties but personally I think if we had an extra body in mid field many of those problems would be covered. He was IMHO one of our stand out players at the start of the season and hasnt done a lot wrong for me.

So I Want to know why we are making concerted efforts to not utilise players of demonstrated quality while we sniff around the lower leagues. Dave Jones managed on a shoe string yet brought in the likes of bothroyd and chopra.
If we want to off load them fine. But surely it makes sens for us to play these guys rather than cut our noses off to spite our face? Logically if they play and strengthen the team we have the following ... a) the team does better, picks up more points and gives us a stronger league place, b) increases their market value so we can go in with a strong position and say ... well they are important first team players so we want a bit more for them.
Currently we are paying them a lot of money to do NOTHING. How can no one see that is an absolutely shocking waste of money and talent???

Aside the obvious shirt and badge issue which will obviously be a main priority - I think high on the list should be the seating arrangements in the ground. Recently it was said chelsea are looking at changing things around to put all the singers etc together and closer to the away fans to create a better atmosphere and we should do the same. Either swap the away toward the canton end or change the family stand with the canton and bring back the 'grange end'. This way we'd have a constant back and forth singing and abuse with the opposing fans which you need for an atmosphere! They shouldn't be worried about trouble there's still enough segregation etc. and these modern stadiums are designed to deal with these problems.

If the meeting starts debating things like swapping ends for sections of the crowd (perfectly sensible reasons for not doing so have in any case been explained at length on many occasions already) then there will not be adequate time for the far more key issues to be discussed

1) the return to traditional blue
2) the conversion of the debt burden to equity to ensure the long term viability of the club
3) season ticket prices

Posted this in another thread but I think this should be asked:

"Vincent tan has recently said that us fans haven't kept our side of the deal with regards to the rebrand. One of the conditions, and most important to a lot of people was the conversion of debt to equity which still hasn't happened. does Vincent tan still plan on converting debt to equity? If not will he return us to blue and apologise for not keeping to his part of the deal?"

As stated also the seating arrangements, pricing, over zealous stewards, why so much cost cutting...

He cannot go ahead with the debt to equity deal as Mike Issacs is still owns 11% shares, the deal was that tan would buy his shares but Mike went back on the deal... Well thats what I've been informed.

Michael Isaac retaining some shares should have nothing to do with VT converting his debt into equity. MI may well have gone back on a promise to sell to VT , but he doesn`t have enough shares to block any decisions VT makes now , let alone after VT converts and therefore has an even bigger shareholding.

I hope that this is the first of a number of meetings, so one of the first questions I'd ask is if a follow up meeting could be arranged?
Obviously Choo et al will go back to Tan with their own interpretations of the discussions, but a follow-up meeting with Tans responses would show that the club is finally entering a dialogue period and not just a one-off airing of views.

As for specific questions -
badge
kit colour
Tans aims? - short term and long term (if there are any)
debt to equity
season ticket prices
walk-up prices
programme sellers outside the ground
atmosphere inside the ground (inc layout)
Use of the Bluebirds name by Ali
Management and backroom staff (I noticed a distinct lack of Scott Young in the technical area last friday night)

Totally agree with your point Welshrarebit.

Posted this in another thread but I think this should be asked:

"Vincent tan has recently said that us fans haven't kept our side of the deal with regards to the rebrand. One of the conditions, and most important to a lot of people was the conversion of debt to equity which still hasn't happened. does Vincent tan still plan on converting debt to equity? If not will he return us to blue and apologise for not keeping to his part of the deal?"

As stated also the seating arrangements, pricing, over zealous stewards, why so much cost cutting...

He cannot go ahead with the debt to equity deal as Mike Issacs is still owns 11% shares, the deal was that tan would buy his shares but Mike went back on the deal... Well thats what I've been informed.

Thats just Tan changing the goalpost. It was mean't to happen after the Malky issue was solved.

its Isaacs changing them but tan should force him to sell which he could do

Good point that Wez. I think Tan could force him to sell so why has he not.

You cannot force anyone to sell shares..

"Does wearing your trousers so high hurt your bollocks?"