Michael Isaac

Any news on this guy ? Isaac's not attended several games, is he still the second biggest shareholder or even a shareholder ?

Any news on this guy ? Isaac's not attended several games, is he still the second biggest shareholder or even a shareholder ?

I spoke to him last week,he has been very ill.
He is still good friends with Tan.

Is he the only one charging huge interest still?

Is he the only one charging huge interest still?

Yes people forget what he is charging the club, (9%) and he is suppose to be a life time supporter of the club.

Long ago when the club was previously on the bones of its arse and other directors were putting in loans either interest free or at low rates Mr Isaac was charging 25% interest which was 20% above the then bank base rate.Not a man who seemingly puts the wellbeing of the club first.

Long ago when the club was previously on the bones of its arse and other directors were putting in loans either interest free or at low rates Mr Isaac was charging 25% interest which was 20% above the then bank base rate.Not a man who seemingly puts the wellbeing of the club first.

I don't get why the club havnt paid it off ,it's a small amount compared to other loans ?

Long ago when the club was previously on the bones of its arse and other directors were putting in loans either interest free or at low rates Mr Isaac was charging 25% interest which was 20% above the then bank base rate.Not a man who seemingly puts the wellbeing of the club first.

I don't get why the club havnt paid it off ,it's a small amount compared to other loans ?

Think about it Wez....debt to equity and a reason not to convert it......who squelched on the deal?

Long ago when the club was previously on the bones of its arse and other directors were putting in loans either interest free or at low rates Mr Isaac was charging 25% interest which was 20% above the then bank base rate.Not a man who seemingly puts the wellbeing of the club first.

I don't get why the club havnt paid it off ,it's a small amount compared to other loans ?

Think about it Wez....debt to equity and a reason not to convert it......who squelched on the deal?

Didnt issacs go back on his word about selling his shares?

Long ago when the club was previously on the bones of its arse and other directors were putting in loans either interest free or at low rates Mr Isaac was charging 25% interest which was 20% above the then bank base rate.Not a man who seemingly puts the wellbeing of the club first.

Keith, He never was a City fan years ago,he was just a business man.

Long ago when the club was previously on the bones of its arse and other directors were putting in loans either interest free or at low rates Mr Isaac was charging 25% interest which was 20% above the then bank base rate.Not a man who seemingly puts the wellbeing of the club first.

I don't get why the club havnt paid it off ,it's a small amount compared to other loans ?

Think about it Wez....debt to equity and a reason not to convert it......who squelched on the deal?

Didnt issacs go back on his word about selling his shares?

Yes he did

And as he is such good friends with Tan it makes you wonder if Tan asked him to do that so he did not have to do the debt to equity thing.

Long ago when the club was previously on the bones of its arse and other directors were putting in loans either interest free or at low rates Mr Isaac was charging 25% interest which was 20% above the then bank base rate.Not a man who seemingly puts the wellbeing of the club first.

I don't get why the club havnt paid it off ,it's a small amount compared to other loans ?

Think about it Wez....debt to equity and a reason not to convert it......who squelched on the deal?

Didnt issacs go back on his word about selling his shares?

Yes he did

And as he is such good friends with Tan it makes you wonder if Tan asked him to do that so he did not have to do the debt to equity thing.

Bloody hell, Now that's what I call a conspiracy theory and a half.

Long ago when the club was previously on the bones of its arse and other directors were putting in loans either interest free or at low rates Mr Isaac was charging 25% interest which was 20% above the then bank base rate.Not a man who seemingly puts the wellbeing of the club first.

I don't get why the club havnt paid it off ,it's a small amount compared to other loans ?

Think about it Wez....debt to equity and a reason not to convert it......who squelched on the deal?

Didnt issacs go back on his word about selling his shares?

Yes he did

And as he is such good friends with Tan it makes you wonder if Tan asked him to do that so he did not have to do the debt to equity thing.

Thats what i thought you were implying? Makes sense
Presume this is why tan is going down route of cost cutting so that equity swap wont be needed

Long ago when the club was previously on the bones of its arse and other directors were putting in loans either interest free or at low rates Mr Isaac was charging 25% interest which was 20% above the then bank base rate.Not a man who seemingly puts the wellbeing of the club first.

I don't get why the club havnt paid it off ,it's a small amount compared to other loans ?

Think about it Wez....debt to equity and a reason not to convert it......who squelched on the deal?

Didnt issacs go back on his word about selling his shares?

Yes he did

And as he is such good friends with Tan it makes you wonder if Tan asked him to do that so he did not have to do the debt to equity thing.

An interesting thought, sounds like an equally nice guy hey!

Long ago when the club was previously on the bones of its arse and other directors were putting in loans either interest free or at low rates Mr Isaac was charging 25% interest which was 20% above the then bank base rate.Not a man who seemingly puts the wellbeing of the club first.

Keith, He never was a City fan years ago,he was just a business man.

So were others who lent money at the time.And none of them took advantage of the club by charging such

I am afraid I am of the opinion that if Mr Isaac were behind me I would need to check that he didn't have anything sharp in his hand

Long ago when the club was previously on the bones of its arse and other directors were putting in loans either interest free or at low rates Mr Isaac was charging 25% interest which was 20% above the then bank base rate.Not a man who seemingly puts the wellbeing of the club first.

I don't get why the club havnt paid it off ,it's a small amount compared to other loans ?

Think about it Wez....debt to equity and a reason not to convert it......who squelched on the deal?

Didnt issacs go back on his word about selling his shares?

Yes he did

And as he is such good friends with Tan it makes you wonder if Tan asked him to do that so he did not have to do the debt to equity thing.

Ian
I believe you are bang on the money with your theory and I also believe issacs was hoping to be rewarded with the
chairmanship.

Long ago when the club was previously on the bones of its arse and other directors were putting in loans either interest free or at low rates Mr Isaac was charging 25% interest which was 20% above the then bank base rate.Not a man who seemingly puts the wellbeing of the club first.

Keith, He never was a City fan years ago,he was just a business man.

So were others who lent money at the time.And none of them took advantage of the club by charging such

I am afraid I am of the opinion that if Mr Isaac were behind me I would need to check that he didn't have anything sharp in his hand

Keith
The knife would be the least of your concerns as the lack of oxygen would get you first. I've stood next to him a few times and got light headed with the reason being he only breathes in and never out

Long ago when the club was previously on the bones of its arse and other directors were putting in loans either interest free or at low rates Mr Isaac was charging 25% interest which was 20% above the then bank base rate.Not a man who seemingly puts the wellbeing of the club first.

I don't get why the club havnt paid it off ,it's a small amount compared to other loans ?

Think about it Wez....debt to equity and a reason not to convert it......who squelched on the deal?

Didnt issacs go back on his word about selling his shares?

Yes he did

And as he is such good friends with Tan it makes you wonder if Tan asked him to do that so he did not have to do the debt to equity thing.

Ian
I believe you are bang on the money with your theory and I also believe issacs was hoping to be rewarded with the
chairmanship.

Hi Steve,

Let me just take you back a bit, a bit before the HMRC case. Let us just say before that case do you think we would have gone under if Tan was not on the scene?. For a tax bill of what was it £3m with a club knocking on the premiership door do you think those that were running the show would have let it happen?

I don't want to start a debate or argument about this because I already believe what I believe. I'm just interested in other peoples opinions who come over to me a bit more astute on this subject.

Long ago when the club was previously on the bones of its arse and other directors were putting in loans either interest free or at low rates Mr Isaac was charging 25% interest which was 20% above the then bank base rate.Not a man who seemingly puts the wellbeing of the club first.

I don't get why the club havnt paid it off ,it's a small amount compared to other loans ?

Think about it Wez....debt to equity and a reason not to convert it......who squelched on the deal?

Didnt issacs go back on his word about selling his shares?

Yes he did

And as he is such good friends with Tan it makes you wonder if Tan asked him to do that so he did not have to do the debt to equity thing.

Ian
I believe you are bang on the money with your theory and I also believe issacs was hoping to be rewarded with the
chairmanship.

Hi Steve,

Let me just take you back a bit, a bit before the HMRC case. Let us just say before that case do you think we would have gone under if Tan was not on the scene?. For a tax bill of what was it £3m with a club knocking on the premiership door do you think those that were running the show would have let it happen?

I don't want to start a debate or argument about this because I already believe what I believe. I'm just interested in other peoples opinions who come over to me a bit more astute on this subject.

Ian

With the amount of debt I don't believe anyone other than tan had the monies to bale us out. At the time of the revenue case Steve borley went to Malaysia to stay with tan for a fortnight to give him the true state of the clubs finances
I went to the high court to listen to the case and as I have said before despite the written guarantee of funds from tan the revenue barrister was still arguing that we would still be trading insolvent and he desperately wanted to make an example of us.
If you own a kindle Ian download Mike halls autobiography which give all the details of the finances and SAMs part in the debt.
It really is an eye opener and ties up with all I ever knew about the debt and how it come about.
The one thing in the book that I knew nothing about is that Steve borley had already approached the council about building a new stadium before Sam bought the club.

That's the thing, it may have been only a few million owed to HMRC but we had god knows how many other debts we had, didn't we have a number of other wind up orders at the time other than HMRC?

In all the stories about that day you cannot hide fact it was city's 3rd appearance in court facing winding up order from hmrc! Not forgetting other untold debts which club could not not pay either? How long does anyone think we would be able to continue insolvent as undoubtably we were.

In all the stories about that day you cannot hide fact it was city's 3rd appearance in court facing winding up order from hmrc! Not forgetting other untold debts which club could not not pay either? How long does anyone think we would be able to continue insolvent as undoubtably we were.

The reality is that from that day to the present we are still basically an insolvent club dependant on tan keeping us afloat

In all the stories about that day you cannot hide fact it was city's 3rd appearance in court facing winding up order from hmrc! Not forgetting other untold debts which club could not not pay either? How long does anyone think we would be able to continue insolvent as undoubtably we were.

The reality is that from that day to the present we are still basically an insolvent club dependant on tan keeping us afloat

Is there any solvent clubs outside the premiership ?

In all the stories about that day you cannot hide fact it was city's 3rd appearance in court facing winding up order from hmrc! Not forgetting other untold debts which club could not not pay either? How long does anyone think we would be able to continue insolvent as undoubtably we were.

The reality is that from that day to the present we are still basically an insolvent club dependant on tan keeping us afloat

Is there any solvent clubs outside the premiership ?

Very thew! But as long S
As cash flow is stable its OK, in our court case we did not have means 3 times to pay hmrc not forgetting other debts! So we were totally insolvent with no means to pay anyone,
To this day no one has said how we were going to pay hmrc?