" VINCENT TAN HAS STATED "

I've posted this more for posters like Wez,who make out that I had made it up
Plus I had been told the same in meetings by the club.
I hope now for the first time,we might get an apology etc like I give if I get it wrong,so No Agendas

" TAN STATES HE HAS PUT £170 MILLION IN TO CARDIFF CITY "

Cardiff City owner Vincent Tan reveals he has ploughed £170m into Bluebirds but vows 'I will make us profitable'
1 October 2014


Head of Sport By Paul Abbandonato
Bluebirds boss admits he would not have got involved if he had forseen problems, but maintains Cardiff will work for him



Cardiff City owner Vincent Tan is adamant he can turn the Bluebirds into a profitable business despite stating he has already invested £170million into the club.

The Malaysian billionaire says he would never have come on board if he had foreseen the problems thrown his way.

But Tan maintains he can still make Wales’ capital city club a thriving business venture... and reiterated his belief that the ‘lucky red’ will help him.

In the third part of an interview with Sky Sports News, Tan stood by his controversial decision to rebrand the Bluebirds and insists the challenge he has taken on will end well.

“If I had known that it was so difficult and the problems that we faced, maybe I wouldn’t have invested,” said Tan.

“But having said that, I think it is a challenge and I believe that eventually this will end well. I believe that I can make this investment profitable.

“Of course, my friends think I’m crazy, that it is impossible to make it profitable, but I believe that it is possible, so time will tell.”




Asked how much he had invested to date, Tan replied: “Maybe about £160, £170 million. I didn’t expect to invest that kind of money when I first got involved.

“When I first got into this I put in £6m when my business partner and friend TG came to me, after he became a director at Cardiff in 2010, persuading me to put in money.

“He said the club is doing well, it’s going to go to a play-off and he said I just need to invest £6m and because I know him well, I trusted him and said okay.

“After the £6m the club went to the play-off against Blackpool at Wembley and that was my first football match.

“After that I got bitten by the football bug, I found it very exciting, very interesting - 90,000 people cheering, full of energy.

“After I put in some more money and then when I reached £20m I said I’m ready to put in more money and maybe invest up to £100m if they can let me change the colour from blue to red.

“My reason was that red is a lucky colour, I also say to them that it is also your national symbol. The national flag of Wales is red, it has a red dragon.

“I would like to use red and then have the dragon. Actually, I don’t like the bluebird, I said ‘Can we take off the bluebird?’

“Finally we had a compromise and said we’ll still keep the bluebird flying underneath the dragon.

“After they agreed, I invested, I gave them money to buy players and we got promoted. The year that we changed, we got promoted.

“Of course there are a few factors, those who like the manager (Malky Mackay) say that it’s because of him.

“Those of us who are in business know, if I don’t provide the £50m, if we don’t buy enough players, how can he get us promoted?”

I've posted this more for posters like Wez,who make out that I had made it up
Plus I had been told the same in meetings by the club.
I hope now for the first time,we might get an apology etc like I give if I get it wrong,so No Agendas

" TAN STATES HE HAS PUT £170 MILLION IN TO CARDIFF CITY "

Cardiff City owner Vincent Tan reveals he has ploughed £170m into Bluebirds but vows 'I will make us profitable'
1 October 2014


Head of Sport By Paul Abbandonato
Bluebirds boss admits he would not have got involved if he had forseen problems, but maintains Cardiff will work for him



Cardiff City owner Vincent Tan is adamant he can turn the Bluebirds into a profitable business despite stating he has already invested £170million into the club.

The Malaysian billionaire says he would never have come on board if he had foreseen the problems thrown his way.

But Tan maintains he can still make Wales’ capital city club a thriving business venture... and reiterated his belief that the ‘lucky red’ will help him.

In the third part of an interview with Sky Sports News, Tan stood by his controversial decision to rebrand the Bluebirds and insists the challenge he has taken on will end well.

“If I had known that it was so difficult and the problems that we faced, maybe I wouldn’t have invested,” said Tan.

“But having said that, I think it is a challenge and I believe that eventually this will end well. I believe that I can make this investment profitable.

“Of course, my friends think I’m crazy, that it is impossible to make it profitable, but I believe that it is possible, so time will tell.”




Asked how much he had invested to date, Tan replied: “Maybe about £160, £170 million. I didn’t expect to invest that kind of money when I first got involved.

“When I first got into this I put in £6m when my business partner and friend TG came to me, after he became a director at Cardiff in 2010, persuading me to put in money.

“He said the club is doing well, it’s going to go to a play-off and he said I just need to invest £6m and because I know him well, I trusted him and said okay.

“After the £6m the club went to the play-off against Blackpool at Wembley and that was my first football match.

“After that I got bitten by the football bug, I found it very exciting, very interesting - 90,000 people cheering, full of energy.

“After I put in some more money and then when I reached £20m I said I’m ready to put in more money and maybe invest up to £100m if they can let me change the colour from blue to red.

“My reason was that red is a lucky colour, I also say to them that it is also your national symbol. The national flag of Wales is red, it has a red dragon.

“I would like to use red and then have the dragon. Actually, I don’t like the bluebird, I said ‘Can we take off the bluebird?’

“Finally we had a compromise and said we’ll still keep the bluebird flying underneath the dragon.

“After they agreed, I invested, I gave them money to buy players and we got promoted. The year that we changed, we got promoted.

“Of course there are a few factors, those who like the manager (Malky Mackay) say that it’s because of him.

“Those of us who are in business know, if I don’t provide the £50m, if we don’t buy enough players, how can he get us promoted?”

So the debt should be 135 or 125 on the lower 160 m invested ? As 35 million was paid in shares ?

Last edited by wez1927 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 12:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I hope now for the first time,we might get an apology etc like I give if I get it wrong,so No Agendas

I hope now for the first time,we might get an apology etc like I give if I get it wrong,so No Agendas

Annis you said we were 170 million and rising in debt we are not that as you havnt taken in to account the shares he bought which isn't debt to Cardiff city ,we will have to see when the books come out what the true position is as Keith said there are conflicting reports in the media ,it will be very interesting as if it's is 170 club debt that is shocking

I hope now for the first time,we might get an apology etc like I give if I get it wrong,so No Agendas

Annis you said we were 170 million and rising in debt we are not that as you havnt taken in to account the shares he bought which isn't debt to Cardiff city ,we will have to see when the books come out what the true position is as Keith said there are conflicting reports in the media ,it will be very interesting as if it's is 170 club debt that is shocking

I stated Tan had said he had put £170million in to CARDIFF CITY and to me it had been lent to us,so to me that is a debt.
You have repeatedly stated Tan had not stated this,be honest?

As to the debt I believe it has come down massively which Zi put out with figures.
But to my shock Keith aka Since 62 an accountant has been told two different stories by two of our CEO'S.
The first stating we have made a profit,so it will come down but now the latest CEO Ken Choo states we have mad a loss
So now we are all not knowing who to believe?
A bit of a farce and not professional in my opinion.

Like you say we now have to await the accounts

I hope now for the first time,we might get an apology etc like I give if I get it wrong,so No Agendas

in fairness annis you generally post what you've been told, but even you have quoted numerous amounts anything from 40m to 170m so can you understand people's scepticism Of what tan as or as not said how much money he put into city?
PS what he put in doesnt mean that's our debt though?

And I am surprised you believe him as up to now you haven't!

Last edited by pembroke allan on Mon Feb 23, 2015 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I hope now for the first time,we might get an apology etc like I give if I get it wrong,so No Agendas

in fairness annis you generally post what you've been told, but even you have quoted numerous amounts anything from 40m to 170m so can you understand people's scepticism Of what tan as or as not said how much money he put into city?
PS what he put in doesnt mean that's our debt though?

Cheers Alan.

Why I state it's a debt is because Tan has only lent it to us and wants it back,we can all have our own opinions on that

I hope now for the first time,we might get an apology etc like I give if I get it wrong,so No Agendas

in fairness annis you generally post what you've been told, but even you have quoted numerous amounts anything from 40m to 170m so can you understand people's scepticism Of what tan as or as not said how much money he put into city?
PS what he put in doesnt mean that's our debt though?

Cheers Alan.

Why I state it's a debt is because Tan has only lent it to us and wants it back,we can all have our own opinions on that

True but ive Just posted generally you don't believe tan so why now?
I thought debt equity is still on agenda according to dalman? Does that mean he doesn't want money back unless he sells us?

I hope now for the first time,we might get an apology etc like I give if I get it wrong,so No Agendas

in fairness annis you generally post what you've been told, but even you have quoted numerous amounts anything from 40m to 170m so can you understand people's scepticism Of what tan as or as not said how much money he put into city?
PS what he put in doesnt mean that's our debt though?

Cheers Alan.

Why I state it's a debt is because Tan has only lent it to us and wants it back,we can all have our own opinions on that

True but ive Just posted generally you don't believe tan so why now?
I thought debt equity is still on agenda according to dalman? Does that mean he doesn't want money back unless he sells us?

Allan, I've stated I don't believe Tan when it comes to Debt to equity,as this has been going on for over 4 years and always a new excuse.

I hope now for the first time,we might get an apology etc like I give if I get it wrong,so No Agendas

in fairness annis you generally post what you've been told, but even you have quoted numerous amounts anything from 40m to 170m so can you understand people's scepticism Of what tan as or as not said how much money he put into city?
PS what he put in doesnt mean that's our debt though?

Cheers Alan.

Why I state it's a debt is because Tan has only lent it to us and wants it back,we can all have our own opinions on that

True but ive Just posted generally you don't believe tan so why now?
I thought debt equity is still on agenda according to dalman? Does that mean he doesn't want money back unless he sells us?

Allan, I've stated I don't believe Tan when it comes to Debt to equity,as this has been going on for over 4 years and always a new excuse.

You sinic Annis! But guess only when it happens or he sells us will we know?

I seen it in an interview a while back it was around 170million then said by tan.

Where ? Last interview he done said we were 80 million in debt I posted it on another thread last night do you believe that we are 170 m in debt like staTed on here all the time by Annis

surely some of that alledged 170 was to buy caulker medel and mutch
and we have sold them for a combined profit of 4 million havnt we

plus 35 million in shares the 25 million for the three above
that's 60 million
come on annis do you not see that

all businesses have tw o columns ffs in and out
170 million in is not all debt ffs

surely some of that alledged 170 was to buy caulker medel and mutch
and we have sold them for a combined profit of 4 million havnt we

plus 35 million in shares the 25 million for the three above
that's 60 million
come on annis do you not see that

I can't see us being 170 million in debt if we are that's shocking ,I can't see much change since the last set of accounts

[quote=27"]

surely some of that alledged 170 was to buy caulker medel and mutch
and we have sold them for a combined profit of 4 million havnt we

plus 35 million in shares the 25 million for the three above
that's 60 million
come on annis do you not see that

I can't see us being 170 million in debt if we are that's shocking ,I can't see much change since the last set of accounts[/quote]


170m he put in over past 4yrs! Nothing to do with amount of debt, totally separate thing, Anyone should know that.

[quote=27"]

surely some of that alledged 170 was to buy caulker medel and mutch
and we have sold them for a combined profit of 4 million havnt we

plus 35 million in shares the 25 million for the three above
that's 60 million
come on annis do you not see that

I can't see us being 170 million in debt if we are that's shocking ,I can't see much change since the last set of accounts

170m he put in over past 4yrs! Nothing to do with amount of debt, totally separate thing, Anyone should know that. [/quote]
I suppose your right, cause what's the difference if he does debt to equity he still put in that money so does that still mean we owe him 170

[quote=27"]

surely some of that alledged 170 was to buy caulker medel and mutch
and we have sold them for a combined profit of 4 million havnt we

plus 35 million in shares the 25 million for the three above
that's 60 million
come on annis do you not see that

I can't see us being 170 million in debt if we are that's shocking ,I can't see much change since the last set of accounts

170m he put in over past 4yrs! Nothing to do with amount of debt, totally separate thing, Anyone should know that.

I suppose your right, cause what's the difference if he does debt to equity he still put in that money so does that still mean we owe him 170[/quote]


No as all the debt is changed to shares and owned by tan! Presumably when he sells he makes whatever he gets for club as he owns 100% of club

[quote=27"]

surely some of that alledged 170 was to buy caulker medel and mutch
and we have sold them for a combined profit of 4 million havnt we

plus 35 million in shares the 25 million for the three above
that's 60 million
come on annis do you not see that

I can't see us being 170 million in debt if we are that's shocking ,I can't see much change since the last set of accounts

170m he put in over past 4yrs! Nothing to do with amount of debt, totally separate thing, Anyone should know that.

I suppose your right, cause what's the difference if he does debt to equity he still put in that money so does that still mean we owe him 170

No as all the debt is changed to shares and owned by tan! Presumably when he sells he makes whatever he gets for club as he owns 100% of club[/quote]

That's why trying to run at minimal loss or break even, if the debt is for argument sake 60m when he sells he needs to sell for that as not to lose Money? So more debt more he needs to sell for? Think this is why reluctant to swap debt until its greatly reduced. Less of risk to him

Annis you got it all wrong he said he put in 170,000,000 dollars which is 110,000,000 pounds

wow dollars not £ that make a hell of a difference hmmmm

If it's 5million or 500 million Cardiff city don't have it bagging about in there safe nore do we, so it makes no difference as he will have to pay himself somehow although he will have to except losses imo but is cutting back as we know and next season more will follow unless he has a change of heart, who knows. What I do know is I got the football bug again so supporting the team even if we shit or good is the main thing.

Annis you got it all wrong he said he put in 170,000,000 dollars which is 110,000,000 pounds

Just to bring some sanity to this thread:

Annis, you have just posted that Tan said he has put 170m into CCFC (£, $, €, ¥ etc etc whatever). I think you have proven past all reasonable doubt that he said that. End of chat really, isn't it?

Just to bring some sanity to this thread:

Annis, you have just posted that Tan said he has put 170m into CCFC (£, $, €, ¥ etc etc whatever). I think you have proven past all reasonable doubt that he said that. End of chat really, isn't it?

For the last year,some posters have continually denied this was ever said by Tan and even now,they are in some ways trying to twist things,your right,Tan said it,end off

yes but did he say pounds or dollars or any other figging currancy

yes but did he say pounds or dollars or any other figging currancy

What he did say is he put in MAYBE 160-170 million but annis always said we are 170 million debt which is totally different as 35 million of any of tans investment was shares and not debt ,but only the books will show what the real position is

yes but did he say pounds or dollars or any other figging currancy

What he did say is he put in MAYBE 160-170 million but annis always said we are 170 million debt which is totally different as 35 million of any of tans investment was shares and not debt ,but only the books will show what the real position is

Sad