DEBT TO EQUITY

Can someone explain why Tan does not change the debt to equity?

Surely if he calls the debt in he will only get what he can from a sale of the club assets where there would be a potential shortfall. Likewise if he changed it to equity he would then get monies from a new buyer and would still make a potential loss.

Would it not make more sense to convert the debt to equity, which would put the club in a better financial position for the same risk - or am I missing something?

Can someone explain why Tan does not change the debt to equity?

Surely if he calls the debt in he will only get what he can from a sale of the club assets where there would be a potential shortfall. Likewise if he changed it to equity he would then get monies from a new buyer and would still make a potential loss.

Would it not make more sense to convert the debt to equity, which would put the club in a better financial position for the same risk - or am I missing something?

The club in the championship isn't worth the money he has put in and he doesn't own the club 100% yet Isaacs won't sell his shares

Can someone explain why Tan does not change the debt to equity?

Surely if he calls the debt in he will only get what he can from a sale of the club assets where there would be a potential shortfall. Likewise if he changed it to equity he would then get monies from a new buyer and would still make a potential loss.

Would it not make more sense to convert the debt to equity, which would put the club in a better financial position for the same risk - or am I missing something?

The club in the championship isn't worth the money he has put in and he doesn't own the club 100% yet Isaacs won't sell his shares

If he converted all his debt into shares , he would own well over 99% of the shares in issue , so close enough to full ownership.

At the moment he won`t convert all the debt as he would then rank behind Sam Hammam/Langston and other creditors in any winding up of the company , so I can understand his wish to avoid that risk.

Plenty of room to start to convert and write off the debt though. £13m written off and a further £3m converted into shares in season 2014/15 (to be confirmed as and when the club get round to publishing the accounts) , and a further substantial write off this season (confirmed by directors/CEO but not quantified). So some way towards honouring the promise to eliminate all the debt , but still a long way to go.

didnt he convert 13 million worth? isnt this part of the contention around the FFP rules?

Can someone explain why Tan does not change the debt to equity?

Surely if he calls the debt in he will only get what he can from a sale of the club assets where there would be a potential shortfall. Likewise if he changed it to equity he would then get monies from a new buyer and would still make a potential loss.

Would it not make more sense to convert the debt to equity, which would put the club in a better financial position for the same risk - or am I missing something?

Tan promised to do this with in months and we then got promoted to Premier League and he still never kept to his word, but that's Tan all over for you.
His couple of disciples that are left will no doubt twist it all, but I was personally there at all the meetings, not second hand information, it's a fact from me.

It's been debated so much,that I honestly can't be bothered to argue with others who only know gossip etc.

Can someone explain why Tan does not change the debt to equity?

Surely if he calls the debt in he will only get what he can from a sale of the club assets where there would be a potential shortfall. Likewise if he changed it to equity he would then get monies from a new buyer and would still make a potential loss.

Would it not make more sense to convert the debt to equity, which would put the club in a better financial position for the same risk - or am I missing something?

The club in the championship isn't worth the money he has put in and he doesn't own the club 100% yet Isaacs won't sell his shares

If he converted all his debt into shares , he would own well over 99% of the shares in issue , so close enough to full ownership.

At the moment he won`t convert all the debt as he would then rank behind Sam Hammam/Langston and other creditors in any winding up of the company , so I can understand his wish to avoid that risk.

Plenty of room to start to convert and write off the debt though. £13m written off and a further £3m converted into shares in season 2014/15 (to be confirmed as and when the club get round to publishing the accounts) , and a further substantial write off this season (confirmed by directors/CEO but not quantified). So some way towards honouring the promise to eliminate all the debt , but still a long way to go.

Thanks for the info ,looks Like we are heading in the right direction

Last edited by wez1927 on Mon Jan 25, 2016 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

didnt he convert 13 million worth? isnt this part of the contention around the FFP rules?

No Tan wrote off £13m which is different to converting debt to equity. The owner/shareholders are only allowed to inject up to £5m per season via equity.

The £13m is now considered a gift to CCFC and can't be recovered. We will have to wait for the accounts to be published but I assume the £13m write off was a way of massaging the accounts so we looked in a better financial situation than we actually were.

That said a £13m write down is no mean thing.

Can someone explain why Tan does not change the debt to equity?

Surely if he calls the debt in he will only get what he can from a sale of the club assets where there would be a potential shortfall. Likewise if he changed it to equity he would then get monies from a new buyer and would still make a potential loss.

Would it not make more sense to convert the debt to equity, which would put the club in a better financial position for the same risk - or am I missing something?

The club in the championship isn't worth the money he has put in and he doesn't own the club 100% yet Isaacs won't sell his shares

If he converted all his debt into shares , he would own well over 99% of the shares in issue , so close enough to full ownership.

At the moment he won`t convert all the debt as he would then rank behind Sam Hammam/Langston and other creditors in any winding up of the company , so I can understand his wish to avoid that risk.

Plenty of room to start to convert and write off the debt though. £13m written off and a further £3m converted into shares in season 2014/15 (to be confirmed as and when the club get round to publishing the accounts) , and a further substantial write off this season (confirmed by directors/CEO but not quantified). So some way towards honouring the promise to eliminate all the debt , but still a long way to go.

Interesting why would Tan rank behind Sam and others I thought he had mortgaged just about everything there was at CCFC?

Can someone explain why Tan does not change the debt to equity?

Surely if he calls the debt in he will only get what he can from a sale of the club assets where there would be a potential shortfall. Likewise if he changed it to equity he would then get monies from a new buyer and would still make a potential loss.

Would it not make more sense to convert the debt to equity, which would put the club in a better financial position for the same risk - or am I missing something?

The club in the championship isn't worth the money he has put in and he doesn't own the club 100% yet Isaacs won't sell his shares

If he converted all his debt into shares , he would own well over 99% of the shares in issue , so close enough to full ownership.

At the moment he won`t convert all the debt as he would then rank behind Sam Hammam/Langston and other creditors in any winding up of the company , so I can understand his wish to avoid that risk.

Plenty of room to start to convert and write off the debt though. £13m written off and a further £3m converted into shares in season 2014/15 (to be confirmed as and when the club get round to publishing the accounts) , and a further substantial write off this season (confirmed by directors/CEO but not quantified). So some way towards honouring the promise to eliminate all the debt , but still a long way to go.

Interesting why would Tan rank behind Sam and others I thought he had mortgaged just about everything there was at CCFC?

I said if he converted ALL his debt into shares (or wrote it all off) , he would rank behind them as he would then not be a creditor at all , just a shareholder. Shareholders rank behind creditors in any winding up.

Can someone explain why Tan does not change the debt to equity?

Surely if he calls the debt in he will only get what he can from a sale of the club assets where there would be a potential shortfall. Likewise if he changed it to equity he would then get monies from a new buyer and would still make a potential loss.

Would it not make more sense to convert the debt to equity, which would put the club in a better financial position for the same risk - or am I missing something?

The club in the championship isn't worth the money he has put in and he doesn't own the club 100% yet Isaacs won't sell his shares

If he converted all his debt into shares , he would own well over 99% of the shares in issue , so close enough to full ownership.

At the moment he won`t convert all the debt as he would then rank behind Sam Hammam/Langston and other creditors in any winding up of the company , so I can understand his wish to avoid that risk.

Plenty of room to start to convert and write off the debt though. £13m written off and a further £3m converted into shares in season 2014/15 (to be confirmed as and when the club get round to publishing the accounts) , and a further substantial write off this season (confirmed by directors/CEO but not quantified). So some way towards honouring the promise to eliminate all the debt , but still a long way to go.

Interesting why would Tan rank behind Sam and others I thought he had mortgaged just about everything there was at CCFC?

I said if he converted ALL his debt into shares (or wrote it all off) , he would rank behind them as he would then not be a creditor at all , just a shareholder. Shareholders rank behind creditors in any winding up.

As soon as I posted the response this occurred to me! Of course he would.

Thanks Guys - makes it a bit clearer

didnt he convert 13 million worth? isnt this part of the contention around the FFP rules?

No Tan wrote off £13m which is different to converting debt to equity. The owner/shareholders are only allowed to inject up to £5m per season via equity.

The £13m is now considered a gift to CCFC and can't be recovered. We will have to wait for the accounts to be published but I assume the £13m write off was a way of massaging the accounts so we looked in a better financial situation than we actually were.

That said a £13m write down is no mean thing.

thanks for clearing that up. Like you say regardless of the reason its still a positive!

It's been debated so much,that I honestly can't be bothered to argue with others who only know gossip etc

That made me chuckle

It's been debated so much,that I honestly can't be bothered to argue with others who only know gossip etc

That made me chuckle

Indeed

But on a serious note, he is right!

Can someone explain why Tan does not change the debt to equity?

Surely if he calls the debt in he will only get what he can from a sale of the club assets where there would be a potential shortfall. Likewise if he changed it to equity he would then get monies from a new buyer and would still make a potential loss.

Would it not make more sense to convert the debt to equity, which would put the club in a better financial position for the same risk - or am I missing something?

The club in the championship isn't worth the money he has put in and he doesn't own the club 100% yet Isaacs won't sell his shares

If he converted all his debt into shares , he would own well over 99% of the shares in issue , so close enough to full ownership.

At the moment he won`t convert all the debt as he would then rank behind Sam Hammam/Langston and other creditors in any winding up of the company , so I can understand his wish to avoid that risk.

Plenty of room to start to convert and write off the debt though. £13m written off and a further £3m converted into shares in season 2014/15 (to be confirmed as and when the club get round to publishing the accounts) , and a further substantial write off this season (confirmed by directors/CEO but not quantified). So some way towards honouring the promise to eliminate all the debt , but still a long way to go.

To me this is good news Keith, and a sign he means to do right by the club.
I wish they would publicise stuff like this- it would make a difference if people saw that Tan was doing positive things rather than the one way negativity which is churned out about him.

As you say, long way to go, but a welcome step forward

There's your answer annis

There's your answer annis

Hmmmmmm?

Deano, Ive not asked the question? ? ? ? ?

so if read correctly what keith is aluding to tan is slowly could be converting the debt (13m las year more this year)!! but not all in one go as previously stated he would? well at least going in right direction but guess wont please some on here?

so if read correctly what keith is aluding to tan is slowly could be converting the debt (13m las year more this year)!! but not all in one go as previously stated he would? well at least going in right direction but guess wont please some on here?

don't tell the tan haters that they think he's going asap I've been hearing that for the past 3 years

Very interesting, makes sense

There's your answer annis

Hmmmmmm?

Deano, Ive not asked the question? ? ? ? ?

It's too much for me to fully understand, but if some of the above is totally accurate, no wonder he hasn't made a move.

#GoingForALieDown #HeadCooked