Why is £10million written off?

Why written off and not just changed to equity with the other £68million?

Surely Tan would get more benefit from the shares relevant to £78million changed to equity.

Can anyone explain? Drum roll for since62 .........

The write off of debt would have created a credit to the profit and loss statement which may explain why the club stated that the accounts will show a profit when released this month.

Converting debt to equity is just a swop and wouldn't create the credit to the profit and loss statement

I'm confused by it all

So I see the writing off of £10 million as as bigger deal as the £68 million debt to equity.

Tan just happily said goodbye to £10 million without the return of shares. That's impressive.

So I see the writing off of £10 million as as bigger deal as the £68 million debt to equity.

Tan just happily said goodbye to £10 million without the return of shares. That's impressive.

Add that to the 13 m write off last season and that's 23 million

It is all financial paper work.
It is Tans own debt, that he created and is responsible for. He would never get it back as he is RESPONSIBLE for it in the first place.
Just accountancy terms to make the company look profitable. When he sells (hopefully asap) then he will have all the money anyway from the sale. He cannot sell with a debt of £80m/£120m/ £160m or whatever it is.

It is all financial paper work.
It is Tans own debt, that he created and is responsible for. He would never get it back as he is RESPONSIBLE for it in the first place.
Just accountancy terms to make the company look profitable. When he sells (hopefully asap) then he will have all the money anyway from the sale. He cannot sell with a debt of £80m/£120m/ £160m or whatever it is.

He's is still giving up on £10 million though which I wouldn't do.

Obviously he now has to make his shares worth a lot more and then sell them to recoup written off debt.

It is all financial paper work.
It is Tans own debt, that he created and is responsible for. He would never get it back as he is RESPONSIBLE for it in the first place.
Just accountancy terms to make the company look profitable. When he sells (hopefully asap) then he will have all the money anyway from the sale. He cannot sell with a debt of £80m/£120m/ £160m or whatever it is.

how many times you going to copy and paste this on to threads hmmmmmmm

It is all financial paper work.
It is Tans own debt, that he created and is responsible for. He would never get it back as he is RESPONSIBLE for it in the first place.
Just accountancy terms to make the company look profitable. When he sells (hopefully asap) then he will have all the money anyway from the sale. He cannot sell with a debt of £80m/£120m/ £160m or whatever it is.

He's is still giving up on £10 million though which I wouldn't do.

Obviously he now has to make his shares worth a lot more and then sell them to recoup written off debt.

£10m to him is only 1% of his reported worth. He could get that back by adding it to the price of the club when he sells.
With the massive debt hanging over it and a transfer embargo, the club is virtually worthless.
Would you pay (for example £1000) off a loan taken out, with your house as security, if it meant you could now sell that house?
The club is now a more sellable asset and even more so if the transfer embargo is lifted.

The write off of debt would have created a credit to the profit and loss statement which may explain why the club stated that the accounts will show a profit when released this month.

Converting debt to equity is just a swop and wouldn't create the credit to the profit and loss statement

You are correct about the debt write off being a credit to the profit and loss account (which a debt to equity swap is not) and which therefore helps with FFP. The £13m write off last season would have helped create the net profit. The £10m write off confirmed yesterday will help in a similar way for the current season. To help in future seasons , the £8m a year which VT said he would do by way of a debt to equity swap for 5 years will instead need to be a debt write off rather than a swap.

The club is now a more sellable asset and even more so if the transfer embargo is lifted.

The club is only worth what someone will pay for it.

As the small print always says. Shares can go up as well as down.

Let's be honest if the club becomes worth enough for him to recoup the equity and the written off debt we will be happy as it means we have obviously done something right for a change.

If we still fail and languish in this league or even the ones below then Tan will not recoup and has therefore written off monies that he will not get back.

All in all pretty good for us.

The club is now a more sellable asset and even more so if the transfer embargo is lifted.

The club is only worth what someone will pay for it.

As the small print always says. Shares can go up as well as down.

Let's be honest if the club becomes worth enough for him to recoup the equity and the written off debt we will be happy as it means we have obviously done something right for a change.

If we still fail and languish in this league or even the ones below then Tan will not recoup and has therefore written off monies that he will not get back.

All in all pretty good for us.

Exactly

It is all financial paper work.
It is Tans own debt, that he created and is responsible for. He would never get it back as he is RESPONSIBLE for it in the first place.
Just accountancy terms to make the company look profitable. When he sells (hopefully asap) then he will have all the money anyway from the sale. He cannot sell with a debt of £80m/£120m/ £160m or whatever it is.

It's not all his debt though.

A big chunk of what he's paying off now is debt which was accumulated by the riddler and Sam.

It is all financial paper work.
It is Tans own debt, that he created and is responsible for. He would never get it back as he is RESPONSIBLE for it in the first place.
Just accountancy terms to make the company look profitable. When he sells (hopefully asap) then he will have all the money anyway from the sale. He cannot sell with a debt of £80m/£120m/ £160m or whatever it is.

It's not all his debt though.

A big chunk of what he's paying off now is debt which was accumulated by the riddler and Sam.

We all know Tan did not create all that debt. He inherited it, and surely when he took control of the club and companies who own/run the club then he takes over the historic debts as well. So he is responsible for them, otherwise he would have got SH and Ridsdale to pay them.

It is all financial paper work.
It is Tans own debt, that he created and is responsible for. He would never get it back as he is RESPONSIBLE for it in the first place.
Just accountancy terms to make the company look profitable. When he sells (hopefully asap) then he will have all the money anyway from the sale. He cannot sell with a debt of £80m/£120m/ £160m or whatever it is.

It's not all his debt though.

A big chunk of what he's paying off now is debt which was accumulated by the riddler and Sam.

We all know Tan did not create all that debt. He inherited it, and surely when he took control of the club and companies who own/run the club then he takes over the historic debts as well. So he is responsible for them, otherwise he would have got SH and Ridsdale to pay them.

I'm sick of this "his debt" nonsense as well. It's the clubs debt, regardless of who caused it. VT and whoever else knew what they were taking on - it became their job to clear it and it appears that will finally happen.

So much of the current debt that VT is "writing off" or turning "to equity" should then be classed as "his debt" if people are going to be consistent with it.

Quite frankly it doesn't matter as long as it gets cleared. Personally, I'd have taken a few steps back to try and clear what was a much smaller debt years ago instead of being where we are now with a much larger debt.