' £68m Debt to Equity '

I see in his interview Vincent Tan says FInancial Fair Play rules only allow £8m per year Debt to Equity - and on this basis he proposes to do £8m per year for the next 5 years

I am pleased, by puzzled, by yesterdays announcement.

How is it then possible he can make a £68m Debt to Equity in one season when the rules state £8m?

Does anyone have a decent understanding of the rules to answer this one?

I see in his interview Vincent Tan says FInancial Fair Play rules only allow £8m per year Debt to Equity - and on this basis he proposes to do £8m per year for the next 5 years

I am pleased, by puzzled, by yesterdays announcement.

How is it then possible he can make a £68m Debt to Equity in one season when the rules state £8m?

Does anyone have a decent understanding of the rules to answer this one?

Maybe coz we are under an embargo now ? And if we donate maximum over next 5 years of 8 million it shows as a profit in accounts ?

is it because no matter how much you invest only 8mill can be used in ffp rules. [sorry no capitals key board playing up]

The way I THINK it is you can't write of debt more than £8m per year, hence the £8 per year up to 2021, but debt to equity isn't exactly writing off debt, it's just turning it into shares

The way I THINK it is you can't write of debt more than £8m per year, hence the £8 per year up to 2021, but debt to equity isn't exactly writing off debt, it's just turning it into shares

I think your right

The way I THINK it is you can't write of debt more than £8m per year, hence the £8 per year up to 2021, but debt to equity isn't exactly writing off debt, it's just turning it into shares

Debt is repayable
Shares are not debt ,they can be sold to recoup money but shares are not debt
So IMO debt to equity as shares is actually writing off debt
That's my understanding of it anyway ?

The way I THINK it is you can't write of debt more than £8m per year, hence the £8 per year up to 2021, but debt to equity isn't exactly writing off debt, it's just turning it into shares

Debt is repayable
Shares are not debt ,they can be sold to recoup money but shares are not debt
So IMO debt to equity as shares is actually writing off debt
That's my understanding of it anyway ?

You're right in that it is basically writing off debt but it's not. It's like a loophole to get out of it really. Turning debt into a potentially profit gainer!

The way I THINK it is you can't write of debt more than £8m per year, hence the £8 per year up to 2021, but debt to equity isn't exactly writing off debt, it's just turning it into shares

I think your right

But that would mean over the next year's Tan is giving up on another £40 million that is owed to him. Just writing it off.

I assumed he would just be turning £8 million a year into more equity.

If Tan is only getting £68 million in shares in return for a debt owed to him of over £100 million then he is a better man than me in respects to giving away cash.

The way I THINK it is you can't write of debt more than £8m per year, hence the £8 per year up to 2021, but debt to equity isn't exactly writing off debt, it's just turning it into shares

I think your right

But that would mean over the next year's Tan is giving up on another £40 million that is owed to him. Just writing it off.

I assumed he would just be turning £8 million a year into more equity.

If Tan is only getting £68 million in shares in return for a debt owed to him of over £100 million then he is a better man than me in respects to giving away cash.

It is his debt, that he created and is reponsible for. He has put the club into a transfer embargo (very embarrassing for such a good businessman eh?). As the only real shareholder, when he sells the club (which he cannot do under a transfer embargo and with massive debt) he will get all the sale money. It is just financial accountancy paperwork. How would he get back the £100m +++ without doing this? He is not giving the club anything, it is just an ego, face saving exercise to cover his mismanagement of the club.

The way I THINK it is you can't write of debt more than £8m per year, hence the £8 per year up to 2021, but debt to equity isn't exactly writing off debt, it's just turning it into shares

I think your right

But that would mean over the next year's Tan is giving up on another £40 million that is owed to him. Just writing it off.

I assumed he would just be turning £8 million a year into more equity.

If Tan is only getting £68 million in shares in return for a debt owed to him of over £100 million then he is a better man than me in respects to giving away cash.

It is his debt, that he created and is reponsible for. He has put the club into a transfer embargo (very embarrassing for such a good businessman eh?). As the only real shareholder, when he sells the club (which he cannot do under a transfer embargo and with massive debt) he will get all the sale money. It is just financial accountancy paperwork. How would he get back the £100m +++ without doing this? He is not giving the club anything, it is just an ego, face saving exercise to cover his mismanagement of the club.

he didn't create 63 million pounds of it ffs you really are deluded

The way I THINK it is you can't write of debt more than £8m per year, hence the £8 per year up to 2021, but debt to equity isn't exactly writing off debt, it's just turning it into shares

I think your right

But that would mean over the next year's Tan is giving up on another £40 million that is owed to him. Just writing it off.

I assumed he would just be turning £8 million a year into more equity.

If Tan is only getting £68 million in shares in return for a debt owed to him of over £100 million then he is a better man than me in respects to giving away cash.

It is his debt, that he created and is reponsible for. He has put the club into a transfer embargo (very embarrassing for such a good businessman eh?). As the only real shareholder, when he sells the club (which he cannot do under a transfer embargo and with massive debt) he will get all the sale money. It is just financial accountancy paperwork. How would he get back the £100m +++ without doing this? He is not giving the club anything, it is just an ego, face saving exercise to cover his mismanagement of the club.

I'm presuming our comment was trying to be funny !!

Your view is assuming that should he ever sell that he would recoup the £150m+ that has been quoted as the level of debt previously on here. Given that a well established Premier club such as Everton is valued at approx £200m then the likelihood of VT getting anywhere near that is unlikely in the extreme.

What this does, in even the most anti VT eyes, is give the club stability (presuming, of course, VT delivers on this). The risk is now VTs, not the clubs.

We've never had an owner that has been willing, or able, to risk his personal wealth before. They've all just borrowed against the club.

If that isn't progress and worth celebrating I don't know what is.

That's from a financial perspective. I wish he'd never turned us red and on the football front I would rather he got shot of Slade and actually said something about future aims and investment in the squad but I suppose one step at a time !!

The way I THINK it is you can't write of debt more than £8m per year, hence the £8 per year up to 2021, but debt to equity isn't exactly writing off debt, it's just turning it into shares

I think your right

But that would mean over the next year's Tan is giving up on another £40 million that is owed to him. Just writing it off.

I assumed he would just be turning £8 million a year into more equity.

If Tan is only getting £68 million in shares in return for a debt owed to him of over £100 million then he is a better man than me in respects to giving away cash.

It is his debt, that he created and is reponsible for. He has put the club into a transfer embargo (very embarrassing for such a good businessman eh?). As the only real shareholder, when he sells the club (which he cannot do under a transfer embargo and with massive debt) he will get all the sale money. It is just financial accountancy paperwork. How would he get back the £100m +++ without doing this? He is not giving the club anything, it is just an ego, face saving exercise to cover his mismanagement of the club.

I'm presuming our comment was trying to be funny !!

Your view is assuming that should he ever sell that he would recoup the £150m+ that has been quoted as the level of debt previously on here. Given that a well established Premier club such as Everton is valued at approx £200m then the likelihood of VT getting anywhere near that is unlikely in the extreme.

What this does, in even the most anti VT eyes, is give the club stability (presuming, of course, VT delivers on this). The risk is now VTs, not the clubs.

We've never had an owner that has been willing, or able, to risk his personal wealth before. They've all just borrowed against the club.

If that isn't progress and worth celebrating I don't know what is.

That's from a financial perspective. I wish he'd never turned us red and on the football front I would rather he got shot of Slade and actually said something about future aims and investment in the squad but I suppose one step at a time !!

Some debt is Sam's some is tans mistakes rest debt is clubs running at loss like 99% of clubs do?and yes we appear to have financial stability 1st time in decades if all goes to tans plan?

The way I THINK it is you can't write of debt more than £8m per year, hence the £8 per year up to 2021, but debt to equity isn't exactly writing off debt, it's just turning it into shares

I think your right

But that would mean over the next year's Tan is giving up on another £40 million that is owed to him. Just writing it off.

I assumed he would just be turning £8 million a year into more equity.

If Tan is only getting £68 million in shares in return for a debt owed to him of over £100 million then he is a better man than me in respects to giving away cash.

It is his debt, that he created and is reponsible for. He has put the club into a transfer embargo (very embarrassing for such a good businessman eh?). As the only real shareholder, when he sells the club (which he cannot do under a transfer embargo and with massive debt) he will get all the sale money. It is just financial accountancy paperwork. How would he get back the £100m +++ without doing this? He is not giving the club anything, it is just an ego, face saving exercise to cover his mismanagement of the club.

I'm presuming our comment was trying to be funny !!

Your view is assuming that should he ever sell that he would recoup the £150m+ that has been quoted as the level of debt previously on here. Given that a well established Premier club such as Everton is valued at approx £200m then the likelihood of VT getting anywhere near that is unlikely in the extreme.

What this does, in even the most anti VT eyes, is give the club stability (presuming, of course, VT delivers on this). The risk is now VTs, not the clubs.

We've never had an owner that has been willing, or able, to risk his personal wealth before. They've all just borrowed against the club.

If that isn't progress and worth celebrating I don't know what is.

That's from a financial perspective. I wish he'd never turned us red and on the football front I would rather he got shot of Slade and actually said something about future aims and investment in the squad but I suppose one step at a time !!

Some debt is Sam's some is tans mistakes rest debt is clubs running at loss like 99% of clubs do?and yes we appear to have financial stability 1st time in decades if all goes to tans plan?

Stability at Cardiff City??
Has that ever happened before? That would be boring. Forums would shut down. There would only be football to discuss with no arguing or moaning to be done about who is responsible for loans etc.

I see in his interview Vincent Tan says FInancial Fair Play rules only allow £8m per year Debt to Equity - and on this basis he proposes to do £8m per year for the next 5 years

I am pleased, by puzzled, by yesterdays announcement.

How is it then possible he can make a £68m Debt to Equity in one season when the rules state £8m?

Does anyone have a decent understanding of the rules to answer this one?

For the current season 2015/16 a Championship club is allowed to make a loss of up to £5m and still comply with FFP. That allowable loss goes up to £13m provided the £8m difference is met by a capital injection by the owner. So there is no FFP benefit in injecting more than £8m but there is no penalty for doing so.

On a technical point the FFP rules suggest the £8m should be new money into the club. A debt to equity swap is not new money so the League would have to agree that a debt to equity swap counts.

It is his debt, that he created and is reponsible for. He has put the club into a transfer embargo (very embarrassing for such a good businessman eh?). As the only real shareholder, when he sells the club (which he cannot do under a transfer embargo and with massive debt) he will get all the sale money. It is just financial accountancy paperwork. How would he get back the £100m +++ without doing this? He is not giving the club anything, it is just an ego, face saving exercise to cover his mismanagement of the club.

One of is is MASSIVELY misinterpreting this whole thing.

It is the clubs debt not Tans. Yes he obviously sanctioned it but whether the money was well spent or wasted it was done so on the club.

It is money he gave the club and now does not want it back.

I agree that he is doing it for his own benefit. A club without debt that could fluke their way into the Premier League can be sold for a wedge and as the major shareholder his shares will be worth more.

HOWEVER, if, like in the past, we do not become a great asset Tan has not held that debt over us but wiped it out.

I see in his interview Vincent Tan says FInancial Fair Play rules only allow £8m per year Debt to Equity - and on this basis he proposes to do £8m per year for the next 5 years

I am pleased, by puzzled, by yesterdays announcement.

How is it then possible he can make a £68m Debt to Equity in one season when the rules state £8m?

Does anyone have a decent understanding of the rules to answer this one?

For the current season 2015/16 a Championship club is allowed to make a loss of up to £5m and still comply with FFP. That allowable loss goes up to £13m provided the £8m difference is met by a capital injection by the owner. So there is no FFP benefit in injecting more than £8m but there is no penalty for doing so.

On a technical point the FFP rules suggest the £8m should be new money into the club. A debt to equity swap is not new money so the League would have to agree that a debt to equity swap counts.

How does 'writing off' debt i.e. no shares just gifting work? Reading up on QPR it seems the FL don't like owners doing this, which seems odd.

Also can VT convert the £8m debt and cover a £5m loss with 'new money?'

Debt turned into shares is not a write off of debt VT will write off £40m debt over 5 years £8m per year
He is not putting £68m into the club as that is not allowed. If and when he leaves we will have a debt free club. So whichever way you look at it which some people cannot see, if you dont know what you are talking about stop moaning

Thanks for the replies. I think I am a little clearer.

It can only be a good thing.

The fact that there appears to be a plan in place suggests that our club will soon progress.

We still have an outside chance of promotion this year - but I feel better about next year

I see in his interview Vincent Tan says FInancial Fair Play rules only allow £8m per year Debt to Equity - and on this basis he proposes to do £8m per year for the next 5 years

I am pleased, by puzzled, by yesterdays announcement.

How is it then possible he can make a £68m Debt to Equity in one season when the rules state £8m?

Does anyone have a decent understanding of the rules to answer this one?

60 million debt to equity will improve the clubs balance sheet we will have more assets.
Fair play to tan he made a big stride yesterday. I thought he would of cut his losses and run to the hills but i was wrong. I dont think we will be debt free by 2021 unless we have a promotion under slade

Such a shame he did the rebrand, he could have been a hero, maybe he still could go down in history as one. I do believe he has been very badly advised in the past, people who were too scared to tell him his ideas were not right fir this club etc, bad CEOs basically, the wrong people around him. Have we wasted 5 years? Has he learnt from it. Let's hope he realises what's needed, talks to the right people and gets us a manager who can re ignite the passion of the fans and take us back up. I don't think russ can do this.