So what is the debt?

Saw its a lot less than 170 million that was bandied on here.

Is that right?

Saw its a lot less than 170 million that was bandied on here.

Is that right?

We will have to wait and see as it can be anything from 50-170. Million ,we were 119 in debt last accounts if we did make a small profit premier ship year and this season then it shouldn't of gone up at all

Saw its a lot less than 170 million that was bandied on here.

Is that right?

Zzzzz pick a number any number!

Saw its a lot less than 170 million that was bandied on here.

Is that right?

Zzzzz pick a number any number!

Totally agree for a change!

Saw its a lot less than 170 million that was bandied on here.

Is that right?

Zzzzz pick a number any number!

Totally agree for a change!

Why was 170 million bandied about then and used to beat Tan with.

Saw its a lot less than 170 million that was bandied on here.

Is that right?

Zzzzz pick a number any number!

Totally agree for a change!

Why was 170 million bandied about then and used to beat Tan with.

because it was scaremongering to get a return to blue now we are blue some people are back tracking

Saw its a lot less than 170 million that was bandied on here.

Is that right?

Zzzzz pick a number any number!

Totally agree for a change!

Saw its a lot less than 170 million that was bandied on here.

Is that right?

Zzzzz pick a number any number!

Totally agree for a change!

Why was 170 million bandied about then and used to beat Tan with.

because it was scaremongering to get a return to blue now we are blue some people are back tracking

I agree and disagree.
Some will say it's lower now to make it more of a shock when it's higher in a few weeks.

The debt is a lot but we have a owner who can afford it easily unlike other owners we had. but cut backs will hopefully mean we don't need to rely on tan every month.
The tan hates should be delighted with the cut backs not having digs at him for it.

Saw its a lot less than 170 million that was bandied on here.

Is that right?

Zzzzz pick a number any number!

Totally agree for a change!

Why was 170 million bandied about then and used to beat Tan with.

because it was scaremongering to get a return to blue now we are blue some people are back tracking

Wez, be honest for once and admit you were wrong,according to Keith we were worse than that,which even shocked me.

Saw its a lot less than 170 million that was bandied on here.

Is that right?

Zzzzz pick a number any number!

Totally agree for a change!

Why was 170 million bandied about then and used to beat Tan with.

because it was scaremongering to get a return to blue now we are blue some people are back tracking

Wez, be honest for once and admit you were wrong,according to Keith we were worse than that,which even shocked me.

has Keith seen the accounts ? Have you ? Let's wait and see the club said they made a profit in the premier season, you had up dates from Carl saying this and you even said this only two days ago ,I think that we should wait and see when they come out one thing for sure I can't see it being 170 million in debt which you did state a few times

Saw its a lot less than 170 million that was bandied on here.

Is that right?

Zzzzz pick a number any number!

Totally agree for a change!

Why was 170 million bandied about then and used to beat Tan with.

because it was scaremongering to get a return to blue now we are blue some people are back tracking

Wez, be honest for once and admit you were wrong,according to Keith we were worse than that,which even shocked me.

has Keith seen the accounts ? Have you ? Let's wait and see the club said they made a profit in the premier season, you had up dates from Carl saying this and you even said this only two days ago ,I think that we should wait and see when they come out one thing for sure I can't see it being 170 million in debt which you did state a few times

I have not seen the May 2014 accounts , but I was at the meeting on Tuesday when both the CEO and the club`s financial controller lady stated that the accounts wil show a loss. I expressed my surprise as the previous CEO had said that they would show a profit of between £10m and £12m.

I always assumed in the region of 170m as it has been mentioned quite frequently here before.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

I always assumed in the region of 170m as it has been mentioned quite frequently here before.

Soon see when the accounts come out

Saw its a lot less than 170 million that was bandied on here.

Is that right?

Zzzzz pick a number any number!

Totally agree for a change!

Why was 170 million bandied about then and used to beat Tan with.

because it was scaremongering to get a return to blue now we are blue some people are back tracking

Wez, be honest for once and admit you were wrong,according to Keith we were worse than that,which even shocked me.

has Keith seen the accounts ? Have you ? Let's wait and see the club said they made a profit in the premier season, you had up dates from Carl saying this and you even said this only two days ago ,I think that we should wait and see when they come out one thing for sure I can't see it being 170 million in debt which you did state a few times

I have not seen the May 2014 accounts , but I was at the meeting on Tuesday when both the CEO and the club`s financial controller lady stated that the accounts wil show a loss. I expressed my surprise as the previous CEO had said that they would show a profit of between £10m and £12m.

Last set of account we were in total debt of 119 million and you said we are in debt now of 130 million so di you think we have lost 11 million in the premiership year ? If we have I think that's shocking

Saw its a lot less than 170 million that was bandied on here.

Is that right?

Zzzzz pick a number any number!

Totally agree for a change!

Why was 170 million bandied about then and used to beat Tan with.

because it was scaremongering to get a return to blue now we are blue some people are back tracking

Wez, be honest for once and admit you were wrong,according to Keith we were worse than that,which even shocked me.

has Keith seen the accounts ? Have you ? Let's wait and see the club said they made a profit in the premier season, you had up dates from Carl saying this and you even said this only two days ago ,I think that we should wait and see when they come out one thing for sure I can't see it being 170 million in debt which you did state a few times

I have not seen the May 2014 accounts , but I was at the meeting on Tuesday when both the CEO and the club`s financial controller lady stated that the accounts wil show a loss. I expressed my surprise as the previous CEO had said that they would show a profit of between £10m and £12m.

Last set of account we were in total debt of 119 million and you said we are in debt now of 130 million so di you think we have lost 11 million in the premiership year ? If we have I think that's shocking

Just to make it clar what the position appears to be and what I said because , with respect , you are mixing up figures so they are not comparable.

The £119m you refer to was the total liabilities the club (or actually its holding company) had at 31 May 2013 according to its audited accounts , against which it had assets (the stadium , player values etc.) so its net liabilities were about £56m. Included in the total liabilities of £119m was £66m due to Vincent Tan.

The club are now saying that the amount due to Vincent Tan is more than £130m , but they haven`t said how much more.But if it is actually £130m , then his debt will have gone up by £64m. This does not mean that the club`s overall net debt has gone up by this much , or even at all as it may now have more assets (the player value in May 2013 was £8m) , and part of that increase due to VT has been because of paying off other creditors that were owed money at May 2013 .

When the May 2014 accounts are published soon it will only show what was owed , and what the net debt was at that date but some of the accounts notes may give a hint of what has happened between now and then.

Keith

Saw its a lot less than 170 million that was bandied on here.

Is that right?

Zzzzz pick a number any number!

Totally agree for a change!

Why was 170 million bandied about then and used to beat Tan with.

because it was scaremongering to get a return to blue now we are blue some people are back tracking

Wez, be honest for once and admit you were wrong,according to Keith we were worse than that,which even shocked me.

has Keith seen the accounts ? Have you ? Let's wait and see the club said they made a profit in the premier season, you had up dates from Carl saying this and you even said this only two days ago ,I think that we should wait and see when they come out one thing for sure I can't see it being 170 million in debt which you did state a few times

I have not seen the May 2014 accounts , but I was at the meeting on Tuesday when both the CEO and the club`s financial controller lady stated that the accounts wil show a loss. I expressed my surprise as the previous CEO had said that they would show a profit of between £10m and £12m.

Last set of account we were in total debt of 119 million and you said we are in debt now of 130 million so di you think we have lost 11 million in the premiership year ? If we have I think that's shocking

Just to make it clar what the position appears to be and what I said because , with respect , you are mixing up figures so they are not comparable.

The £119m you refer to was the total liabilities the club (or actually its holding company) had at 31 May 2013 according to its audited accounts , against which it had assets (the stadium , player values etc.) so its net liabilities were about £56m. Included in the total liabilities of £119m was £66m due to Vincent Tan.

The club are now saying that the amount due to Vincent Tan is more than £130m , but they haven`t said how much more.But if it is actually £130m , then his debt will have gone up by £64m. This does not mean that the club`s overall net debt has gone up by this much , or even at all as it may now have more assets (the player value in May 2013 was £8m) , and part of that increase due to VT has been because of paying off other creditors that were owed money at May 2013 .

When the May 2014 accounts are published soon it will only show what was owed , and what the net debt was at that date but some of the accounts notes may give a hint of what has happened between now and then.

Keith

thanks for reply so it could be a case of debt swapping ? Ie old debt that tan has paid off?

Part of the explanation for the increase in the debt due to VT is him paying off some other creditors like most of the Langston debt.However it nowhere near explains why it has gone up from the £66m owed at 31 May 2013 to the debt level now claimed to be more than £130m

Also strangely VT claimed as far back as July 2013 when he was interviewed on film that he was owed £130m then and that was less than 2 months after he was owed £66m.If what he said was true (and I have my doubts as it was the same interview that he would be converting all his debt to shares to make the club debt free) then the debt may not have gone up much between July 2013 and now.

Unfortunately financial information coming out from the club and direct from VT is far from consistent and has even varied greatly from one CEO to the next.

Part of the explanation for the increase in the debt due to VT is him paying off some other creditors like most of the Langston debt.However it nowhere near explains why it has gone up from the £66m owed at 31 May 2013 to the debt level now claimed to be more than £130m

Also strangely VT claimed as far back as July 2013 when he was interviewed on film that he was owed £130m then and that was less than 2 months after he was owed £66m.If what he said was true (and I have my doubts as it was the same interview that he would be converting all his debt to shares to make the club debt free) then the debt may not have gone up much between July 2013 and now.

Unfortunately financial information coming out from the club and direct from VT is far from consistent and has even varied greatly from one CEO to the next.

could of tan forward the club say 60 million at that time taking his investment to around 130 m then taken it back once the sky tv money came in ?

Part of the explanation for the increase in the debt due to VT is him paying off some other creditors like most of the Langston debt.However it nowhere near explains why it has gone up from the £66m owed at 31 May 2013 to the debt level now claimed to be more than £130m

Also strangely VT claimed as far back as July 2013 when he was interviewed on film that he was owed £130m then and that was less than 2 months after he was owed £66m.If what he said was true (and I have my doubts as it was the same interview that he would be converting all his debt to shares to make the club debt free) then the debt may not have gone up much between July 2013 and now.

Unfortunately financial information coming out from the club and direct from VT is far from consistent and has even varied greatly from one CEO to the next.

could of tan forward the club say 60 million at that time taking his investment to around 130 m then taken it back once the sky tv money came in ?

Possible explanation wez seems odd gone up by 60m in 2mnths! So we coud be looking at just 60m debt? If Keith doesn't know not much hope for us mere amature accountants!

I always assumed in the region of 170m as it has been mentioned quite frequently here before.

And as you know,that was posted by me after a Tan kept saying he had put £170mill in our club,which he has lent us and wants back.

I always assumed in the region of 170m as it has been mentioned quite frequently here before.

And as you know,that was posted by me after a Tan kept saying he had put £170mill in our club,which he has lent us and wants back.

Where did he say this ?

Tan saying a year ago we are only 70-80 million in Debt. http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/26366898
how in one year it could be 170 ?

Tan saying a year ago we are only 70-80 million in Debt. http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/26366898
how in one year it could be 170 ?

BBC said dalman said that he had put 150 m in this article but not tans words http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30533112