" Questions re our debt/finances ideally Since62? "

Others may well know but Since62 seems like an expert on these matters.

How much was our debt when Tan took us over?

What was the value of assets at this time?

How much were we losing per week at this time?

How much of our future payments had been accounted for already at the time Tan took us over?

How much is the debt now?

How much are our assets valued at now?

How much of this increase in value of assets is due to Tan?








How

How much

Others may well know but Since62 seems like an expert on these matters.

How much was our debt when Tan took us over?

What was the value of assets at this time?

How much were we losing per week at this time?

How much of our future payments had been accounted for already at the time Tan took us over?

How much is the debt now?

How much are our assets valued at now?

How much of this increase in value of assets is due to Tan?








How

How much

I sure he said its was around the 65 million mark the debt and now 135 m

The only assets the club has is its players. The stadium is in effect worthless, unless you know someone in Cardiff who could use a 33,000 seater stadium.

The only assets the club has is its players. The stadium is in effect worthless, unless you know someone in Cardiff who could use a 33,000 seater stadium.

It still goes as an asset if memory serves. The stadium has increased in value due to work done on it.

The thing is with the clubs finances is that when your are approximately £150m in debt to a man who is, to say the least, a bit unpredictable it all seems a bit academic. Unfortunately while he remains as the owner and seems unwilling to convert the debt to shares there will continue to be a big black cloud hanging over the club.

The thing is with the clubs finances is that when your are approximately £150m in debt to a man who is, to say the least, a bit unpredictable it all seems a bit academic. Unfortunately while he remains as the owner and seems unwilling to convert the debt to shares there will continue to be a big black cloud hanging over the club.

Better than debt to lots of people including HMRC (who would liquidate us) and others who were looking to take us to court to recover.

He is unpredictable but predictable in that his honour won't allow him to leave us in a shit state. He is predictable in paying our bills every week.

The thing is with the clubs finances is that when your are approximately £150m in debt to a man who is, to say the least, a bit unpredictable it all seems a bit academic. Unfortunately while he remains as the owner and seems unwilling to convert the debt to shares there will continue to be a big black cloud hanging over the club.

Approx 150 million in debt
Why not say approx 200 million in debt
Or approx 100 million in debt
No one knows the true debt situation
It's quite laughable how some come out with the figures they do
Some keep saying the money we got from medel and caulker sales went straight in his back pocket ffs

The thing is with the clubs finances is that when your are approximately £150m in debt to a man who is, to say the least, a bit unpredictable it all seems a bit academic. Unfortunately while he remains as the owner and seems unwilling to convert the debt to shares there will continue to be a big black cloud hanging over the club.

Approx 150 million in debt
Why not say approx 200 million in debt
Or approx 100 million in debt
No one knows the true debt situation
It's quite laughable how some come out with the figures they do
Some keep saying the money we got from medel and caulker sales went straight in his back pocket ffs

He has never put money into his back pocket from our club. It's been one way unlike with previous owners / chairmen. People say it's loans. Interest free loans I'll add.

The thing is with the clubs finances is that when your are approximately £150m in debt to a man who is, to say the least, a bit unpredictable it all seems a bit academic. Unfortunately while he remains as the owner and seems unwilling to convert the debt to shares there will continue to be a big black cloud hanging over the club.

Approx 150 million in debt
Why not say approx 200 million in debt
Or approx 100 million in debt
No one knows the true debt situation
It's quite laughable how some come out with the figures they do
Some keep saying the money we got from medel and caulker sales went straight in his back pocket ffs

He has never put money into his back pocket from our club. It's been one way unlike with previous owners / chairmen. People say it's loans. Interest free loans I'll add.

All the loans have 7% on them.

It is claimed Tan has not taken a penny from the club and has written off some of the interest. However if he picks up and leaves the loans will be outstanding and 7% will still be applied. I bet he will want it paying then.

The thing is with the clubs finances is that when your are approximately £150m in debt to a man who is, to say the least, a bit unpredictable it all seems a bit academic. Unfortunately while he remains as the owner and seems unwilling to convert the debt to shares there will continue to be a big black cloud hanging over the club.

Approx 150 million in debt
Why not say approx 200 million in debt
Or approx 100 million in debt
No one knows the true debt situation
It's quite laughable how some come out with the figures they do
Some keep saying the money we got from medel and caulker sales went straight in his back pocket ffs

He has never put money into his back pocket from our club. It's been one way unlike with previous owners / chairmen. People say it's loans. Interest free loans I'll add.

All the loans have 7% on them.

It is claimed Tan has not taken a penny from the club and has written off some of the interest. However if he picks up and leaves the loans will be outstanding and 7% will still be applied. I bet he will want it paying then.

Well that would be going against everything he has done before.

The debt only ever worries a few old inner circle chaps.

We have owed far less, barely pay wages, sold to survive another week and nearly be wound or countless times, but this in their opinion is worse.

We owe one very wealthy proud individual twice as much as the club is worth. He will want to rid himself of us when he is ready on his terms. I have no doubt that will not spell catastrophe for us.

Get us on an even keel, recruit properly and give it a go next season or the season after.

The debt only ever worries a few old inner circle chaps.

We have owed far less, barely pay wages, sold to survive another week and nearly be wound or countless times, but this in their opinion is worse.

We owe one very wealthy proud individual twice as much as the club is worth. He will want to rid himself of us when he is ready on his terms. I have no doubt that will not spell catastrophe for us.

Get us on an even keel, recruit properly and give it a go next season or the season after.

Spot on

The thing is with the clubs finances is that when your are approximately £150m in debt to a man who is, to say the least, a bit unpredictable it all seems a bit academic. Unfortunately while he remains as the owner and seems unwilling to convert the debt to shares there will continue to be a big black cloud hanging over the club.

Better than debt to lots of people including HMRC (who would liquidate us) and others who were looking to take us to court to recover.

He is unpredictable but predictable in that his honour won't allow him to leave us in a shit state. He is predictable in paying our bills every week.

What hounour does Tan have? He is untrustworthy and a liar.
It is better to owe maoney to lots of people than just one . You can negotiate terms, repayment plans, offer deals etc then. But to one person, especially the likes of Tan, who cannot be trusted, and his word means nothing, then you are in trouble. As the club now is.
The stadium can have all the upgrades, extra work, painting that you can think of, but it is still of no use to anyone, unless they want a 33,000 seater football stadium in cardiff.

The thing is with the clubs finances is that when your are approximately £150m in debt to a man who is, to say the least, a bit unpredictable it all seems a bit academic. Unfortunately while he remains as the owner and seems unwilling to convert the debt to shares there will continue to be a big black cloud hanging over the club.

Better than debt to lots of people including HMRC (who would liquidate us) and others who were looking to take us to court to recover.

He is unpredictable but predictable in that his honour won't allow him to leave us in a shit state. He is predictable in paying our bills every week.

What hounour does Tan have? He is untrustworthy and a liar.
It is better to owe maoney to lots of people than just one . You can negotiate terms, repayment plans, offer deals etc then. But to one person, especially the likes of Tan, who cannot be trusted, and his word means nothing, then you are in trouble. As the club now is.
The stadium can have all the upgrades, extra work, painting that you can think of, but it is still of no use to anyone, unless they want a 33,000 seater football stadium in cardiff.

His culture espouses honour. What has he done to show him untrustworthy apart from an alleged promise for debt to equity that depending on who you speak to has the wording change constantly.

Now our two previous owners / chairmen of note lied constantly but some think the grass was greener with them.

If you can't see what Llan bluebird so eloquently puts a few posts ago then you really are deluded.

The thing is with the clubs finances is that when your are approximately £150m in debt to a man who is, to say the least, a bit unpredictable it all seems a bit academic. Unfortunately while he remains as the owner and seems unwilling to convert the debt to shares there will continue to be a big black cloud hanging over the club.

Better than debt to lots of people including HMRC (who would liquidate us) and others who were looking to take us to court to recover.

He is unpredictable but predictable in that his honour won't allow him to leave us in a shit state. He is predictable in paying our bills every week.

What hounour does Tan have? He is untrustworthy and a liar.
It is better to owe maoney to lots of people than just one . You can negotiate terms, repayment plans, offer deals etc then. But to one person, especially the likes of Tan, who cannot be trusted, and his word means nothing, then you are in trouble. As the club now is.
The stadium can have all the upgrades, extra work, painting that you can think of, but it is still of no use to anyone, unless they want a 33,000 seater football stadium in cardiff.

His culture espouses honour. What has he done to show him untrustworthy apart from an alleged promise for debt to equity that depending on who you speak to has the wording change constantly.

Now our two previous owners / chairmen of note lied constantly but some think the grass was greener with them.

If you can't see what Llan bluebird so eloquently puts a few posts ago then you really are deluded.

Both Sam Hammam and ( more so) Peter Ridsdale told a number of lies as you say. Peter Ridsdale was considered so bad that he was disqualified by a court order from being a director of a UK company for 9 years ( yet he has still wangled himself a senior job in football).

There are a number of strong allegations, both here and in Malaysia, that Vincent Tan is not honourable in his business dealings.

The promise of a conversion of all of his debt to equity is not alleged. It is a fact, recorded on t.v. For all to see. Just Google " Vincent Tan honorary degree" and you can see the promise being made. There are also several press reports where a repeated promise is quoted.

Others may well know but Since62 seems like an expert on these matters.

How much was our debt when Tan took us over?

What was the value of assets at this time?

How much were we losing per week at this time?

How much of our future payments had been accounted for already at the time Tan took us over?

How much is the debt now?

How much are our assets valued at now?

How much of this increase in value of assets is due to Tan?








How

How much

happy to look at this again on Monday when I have access to the relevant figures covering the period from VT's initial investment to 31 May 2014 which are the most recent published accounts. The May 2015 accounts should be available shortly as they have to be filed by the end of next month to avoid a late filing fine.

Others may well know but Since62 seems like an expert on these matters.

How much was our debt when Tan took us over?

What was the value of assets at this time?

How much were we losing per week at this time?

How much of our future payments had been accounted for already at the time Tan took us over?

How much is the debt now?

How much are our assets valued at now?

How much of this increase in value of assets is due to Tan?








How

How much

happy to look at this again on Monday when I have access to the relevant figures covering the period from VT's initial investment to 31 May 2014 which are the most recent published accounts. The May 2015 accounts should be available shortly as they have to be filed by the end of next month to avoid a late filing fine.

Thank you.

I'm most curious to know what the debt would have been had Tan not taken us over? I mean I think without Tan we would have gone bust but still curious to know.

The thing is with the clubs finances is that when your are approximately £150m in debt to a man who is, to say the least, a bit unpredictable it all seems a bit academic. Unfortunately while he remains as the owner and seems unwilling to convert the debt to shares there will continue to be a big black cloud hanging over the club.

Better than debt to lots of people including HMRC (who would liquidate us) and others who were looking to take us to court to recover.

He is unpredictable but predictable in that his honour won't allow him to leave us in a shit state. He is predictable in paying our bills every week.

What hounour does Tan have? He is untrustworthy and a liar.
It is better to owe maoney to lots of people than just one . You can negotiate terms, repayment plans, offer deals etc then. But to one person, especially the likes of Tan, who cannot be trusted, and his word means nothing, then you are in trouble. As the club now is.
The stadium can have all the upgrades, extra work, painting that you can think of, but it is still of no use to anyone, unless they want a 33,000 seater football stadium in cardiff.

How has he lied ????? Please prove it ,wrongly or rightly he said he would put 100 million in if we rebranded and he did ,he said he wouldn't take any intrest on investment and he hasn't so he's not a lier just abut of a fool with the rebrand and backing his managers

The thing is with the clubs finances is that when your are approximately £150m in debt to a man who is, to say the least, a bit unpredictable it all seems a bit academic. Unfortunately while he remains as the owner and seems unwilling to convert the debt to shares there will continue to be a big black cloud hanging over the club.

Better than debt to lots of people including HMRC (who would liquidate us) and others who were looking to take us to court to recover.

He is unpredictable but predictable in that his honour won't allow him to leave us in a shit state. He is predictable in paying our bills every week.

What hounour does Tan have? He is untrustworthy and a liar.
It is better to owe maoney to lots of people than just one . You can negotiate terms, repayment plans, offer deals etc then. But to one person, especially the likes of Tan, who cannot be trusted, and his word means nothing, then you are in trouble. As the club now is.
The stadium can have all the upgrades, extra work, painting that you can think of, but it is still of no use to anyone, unless they want a 33,000 seater football stadium in cardiff.

How has he lied ????? Please prove it ,wrongly or rightly he said he would put 100 million in if we rebranded and he did ,he said he wouldn't take any intrest on investment and he hasn't so he's not a lier just abut of a fool with the rebrand and backing his managers

They will see he lied about debt to equity. I would say if it was linked to rebrand (a year after) then we have reneged on any deal. Apart from that he hasn't lied at all.

The thing is with the clubs finances is that when your are approximately £150m in debt to a man who is, to say the least, a bit unpredictable it all seems a bit academic. Unfortunately while he remains as the owner and seems unwilling to convert the debt to shares there will continue to be a big black cloud hanging over the club.

Better than debt to lots of people including HMRC (who would liquidate us) and others who were looking to take us to court to recover.

He is unpredictable but predictable in that his honour won't allow him to leave us in a shit state. He is predictable in paying our bills every week.

What hounour does Tan have? He is untrustworthy and a liar.
It is better to owe maoney to lots of people than just one . You can negotiate terms, repayment plans, offer deals etc then. But to one person, especially the likes of Tan, who cannot be trusted, and his word means nothing, then you are in trouble. As the club now is.
The stadium can have all the upgrades, extra work, painting that you can think of, but it is still of no use to anyone, unless they want a 33,000 seater football stadium in cardiff.

How has he lied ????? Please prove it ,wrongly or rightly he said he would put 100 million in if we rebranded and he did ,he said he wouldn't take any intrest on investment and he hasn't so he's not a lier just abut of a fool with the rebrand and backing his managers

They will see he lied about debt to equity. I would say if it was linked to rebrand (a year after) then we have reneged on any deal. Apart from that he hasn't lied at all.

Be also said once Langston is sorted which it isn't tho

The thing is with the clubs finances is that when your are approximately £150m in debt to a man who is, to say the least, a bit unpredictable it all seems a bit academic. Unfortunately while he remains as the owner and seems unwilling to convert the debt to shares there will continue to be a big black cloud hanging over the club.

Better than debt to lots of people including HMRC (who would liquidate us) and others who were looking to take us to court to recover.

He is unpredictable but predictable in that his honour won't allow him to leave us in a shit state. He is predictable in paying our bills every week.

What hounour does Tan have? He is untrustworthy and a liar.
It is better to owe maoney to lots of people than just one . You can negotiate terms, repayment plans, offer deals etc then. But to one person, especially the likes of Tan, who cannot be trusted, and his word means nothing, then you are in trouble. As the club now is.
The stadium can have all the upgrades, extra work, painting that you can think of, but it is still of no use to anyone, unless they want a 33,000 seater football stadium in cardiff.

How has he lied ????? Please prove it ,wrongly or rightly he said he would put 100 million in if we rebranded and he did ,he said he wouldn't take any intrest on investment and he hasn't so he's not a lier just abut of a fool with the rebrand and backing his managers

They will see he lied about debt to equity. I would say if it was linked to rebrand (a year after) then we have reneged on any deal. Apart from that he hasn't lied at all.

Be also said once Langston is sorted which it isn't tho

A deal was agreed so yes Langston was sorted.

The thing is with the clubs finances is that when your are approximately £150m in debt to a man who is, to say the least, a bit unpredictable it all seems a bit academic. Unfortunately while he remains as the owner and seems unwilling to convert the debt to shares there will continue to be a big black cloud hanging over the club.

Better than debt to lots of people including HMRC (who would liquidate us) and others who were looking to take us to court to recover.

He is unpredictable but predictable in that his honour won't allow him to leave us in a shit state. He is predictable in paying our bills every week.

What hounour does Tan have? He is untrustworthy and a liar.
It is better to owe maoney to lots of people than just one . You can negotiate terms, repayment plans, offer deals etc then. But to one person, especially the likes of Tan, who cannot be trusted, and his word means nothing, then you are in trouble. As the club now is.
The stadium can have all the upgrades, extra work, painting that you can think of, but it is still of no use to anyone, unless they want a 33,000 seater football stadium in cardiff.

How has he lied ????? Please prove it ,wrongly or rightly he said he would put 100 million in if we rebranded and he did ,he said he wouldn't take any intrest on investment and he hasn't so he's not a lier just abut of a fool with the rebrand and backing his managers

They will see he lied about debt to equity. I would say if it was linked to rebrand (a year after) then we have reneged on any deal. Apart from that he hasn't lied at all.

Be also said once Langston is sorted which it isn't tho

A deal was agreed so yes Langston was sorted.

And when in control of all the shares. Isaacs still holding out.

The thing is with the clubs finances is that when your are approximately £150m in debt to a man who is, to say the least, a bit unpredictable it all seems a bit academic. Unfortunately while he remains as the owner and seems unwilling to convert the debt to shares there will continue to be a big black cloud hanging over the club.

Better than debt to lots of people including HMRC (who would liquidate us) and others who were looking to take us to court to recover.

He is unpredictable but predictable in that his honour won't allow him to leave us in a shit state. He is predictable in paying our bills every week.

What hounour does Tan have? He is untrustworthy and a liar.
It is better to owe maoney to lots of people than just one . You can negotiate terms, repayment plans, offer deals etc then. But to one person, especially the likes of Tan, who cannot be trusted, and his word means nothing, then you are in trouble. As the club now is.
The stadium can have all the upgrades, extra work, painting that you can think of, but it is still of no use to anyone, unless they want a 33,000 seater football stadium in cardiff.

How has he lied ????? Please prove it ,wrongly or rightly he said he would put 100 million in if we rebranded and he did ,he said he wouldn't take any intrest on investment and he hasn't so he's not a lier just abut of a fool with the rebrand and backing his managers

They will see he lied about debt to equity. I would say if it was linked to rebrand (a year after) then we have reneged on any deal. Apart from that he hasn't lied at all.

Be also said once Langston is sorted which it isn't tho

A deal was agreed so yes Langston was sorted.

And when in control of all the shares. Isaacs still holding out.[/quote]

Langston sorted but not finished with!

I'm sure he is a great accountant and I respect his comment but its clear his option changes massively during the rebrand, you can twist anything to your advantage that's what axxountsnts do.

I'm sure he is a great accountant and I respect his comment but its clear his option changes massively during the rebrand, you can twist anything to your advantage that's what axxountsnts do.

In what way?

Once his opinion of Tan changed so did his thoughts. I'm not going to back it up, just an observation.

Once his opinion of Tan changed so did his thoughts. I'm not going to back it up, just an observation.

Yes, a definite shift in recent years.

Once his opinion of Tan changed so did his thoughts. I'm not going to back it up, just an observation.

I think as he got more involved with the trust possibly?

Once his opinion of Tan changed so did his thoughts. I'm not going to back it up, just an observation.

I think as he got more involved with the trust possibly?

I presume because of the title of this thread that the references to the accountant and a claimed change of thoughts are to me so maybe it is useful for me to set out the actual facts for clarification.

I was opposed to the rebrand right from the initial meeting where it was announced by Alan Whiteley and Julian Jenkins. I was present at the meeting and tried to stress my view then that it was not supported by any business need or case. Alan confirmed at the meeting that he and the club board had not been given any such explanation either but had been told to accept it because Vincent Tan wanted it.
I understood the need for the club to get funding to help deal with its debts but only on the basis that the promise that all money put in would not increase the debts but be written off or converted into shares.That was also the basis upon which the club directors accepted the investment.
I have never changed my stance on this throughout the period since, largely because there has still not been a marketing or business benefit explanation put forward. Indeed the current Chairman Mehmet Dalman said ( to my face) that no such business reason had ever existed but that the requirement for the colour change was now said by Vincent Tan to be for "spiritual" reasons.
I have only met Vincent Tan once, at a meeting with a number of other supporter group representatives. At that meeting he made a speech which can only be described as " rambling"( others like Vince who was there can confirm this) about "lucky red", the power of dragons etc. and made a claim ( which I genuinely think he believed based on his employees being scared to tell him the truth) that only a tiny percentage of City fans were opposed to the rebrand. During the meeting he was shown a copy of the fans survey which showed that the vast majority of fans were against it, but ignored it as it contradicted his own statement. At the end of the meeting he told ( not even requested) that those there go back to the groups they represented and TELL them to like the red.

I believe that Vincent Tan made a huge business mistake with the rebrand because of a total lack of understanding of how football and it's fan base works, because of not being able to deal with the huge cultural differences between the Chinese and the UK, and because of only employing senior management that give him advice that they think he wants to hear rather than best advice. Employing people up to CEO level with no football knowledge has also not helped.

I have never disliked Vincent Tan as a person because I don't know him but I have always hated how he caused such huge division in the fan base and caused so many previously loyal fans to stop supporting the club. And to be honest, based on his recent track record which has seen him lose a large percentage of his wealth on projects other than CCFC, don't rate him anywhere near as highly as a businessman as others do. For those who say he must be a great businessman because of his wealth , I would ask them to look at what Malaysian government "favours" he received to create much of that wealth.

As for the Trust , I have been fully involved since it started, so couldn't have changed my views since I have v
Become "more involved"

Keith

Once his opinion of Tan changed so did his thoughts. I'm not going to back it up, just an observation.

I think as he got more involved with the trust possibly?

I presume because of the title of this thread that the references to the accountant and a claimed change of thoughts are to me so maybe it is useful for me to set out the actual facts for clarification.

I was opposed to the rebrand right from the initial meeting where it was announced by Alan Whiteley and Julian Jenkins. I was present at the meeting and tried to stress my view then that it was not supported by any business need or case. Alan confirmed at the meeting that he and the club board had not been given any such explanation either but had been told to accept it because Vincent Tan wanted it.
I understood the need for the club to get funding to help deal with its debts but only on the basis that the promise that all money put in would not increase the debts but be written off or converted into shares.That was also the basis upon which the club directors accepted the investment.
I have never changed my stance on this throughout the period since, largely because there has still not been a marketing or business benefit explanation put forward. Indeed the current Chairman Mehmet Dalman said ( to my face) that no such business reason had ever existed but that the requirement for the colour change was now said by Vincent Tan to be for "spiritual" reasons.
I have only met Vincent Tan once, at a meeting with a number of other supporter group representatives. At that meeting he made a speech which can only be described as " rambling"( others like Vince who was there can confirm this) about "lucky red", the power of dragons etc. and made a claim ( which I genuinely think he believed based on his employees being scared to tell him the truth) that only a tiny percentage of City fans were opposed to the rebrand. During the meeting he was shown a copy of the fans survey which showed that the vast majority of fans were against it, but ignored it as it contradicted his own statement. At the end of the meeting he told ( not even requested) that those there go back to the groups they represented and TELL them to like the red.

I believe that Vincent Tan made a huge business mistake with the rebrand because of a total lack of understanding of how football and it's fan base works, because of not being able to deal with the huge cultural differences between the Chinese and the UK, and because of only employing senior management that give him advice that they think he wants to hear rather than best advice. Employing people up to CEO level with no football knowledge has also not helped.

I have never disliked Vincent Tan as a person because I don't know him but I have always hated how he caused such huge division in the fan base and caused so many previously loyal fans to stop supporting the club. And to be honest, based on his recent track record which has seen him lose a large percentage of his wealth on projects other than CCFC, don't rate him anywhere near as highly as a businessman as others do. For those who say he must be a great businessman because of his wealth , I would ask them to look at what Malaysian government "favours" he received to create much of that wealth.

As for the Trust , I have been fully involved since it started, so couldn't have changed my views since I have v
Become "more involved"

Keith

Not at all with regards the original post I respect your knowledge of our accounts. You also explain things well. I asked simple questions. 2 blue mentioned your views changed I summised it was possibly due to involvement with trust.