MORE NEWS BREAKING ON CITY TONIGHT

Two pieces of news coming out of the club tonight, firstly it is not a cert that Ledley is going to Stoke as Joe himself has not made his mind up, the clubs he is thinking of going to are Stoke and Celtic but today West Brom have come in with an excellent offer and this is has given Joe another option but it is definate that he will not stay at Cardiff City.

But the other piece is even worse news, on returning to training the players were called into a meeting and they have all been asked to defer their bonuses and appearence fees until the end of the season. The players are holding their own meeting next week to decide collectively but I can tell you from a few individual players they are not happy about the situation.

I feel for Dave Jones in all this.

If anyone wishes to disagree with this then I suggest you contact the club and ask them to confirm or deny my claims.

where do the papers get their figures from

Ledley could cost £750k in compensation'..

Their in la-la land.

I've got to take issue with you about this being "even worse news".

Firstly, as others have pointed out, we are talking about a deferral of bonus payments here and not a withdrawal of them.

It's ten years this month since Sam Hammam arrived at the club and since then it has consistently spent money which it didn't have and was incapable of finding without promotion to the Premiership. To be fair, all of that money has seen standards rise dramatically on the pitch, but, given the size of our debt, the wages we pay and the success achieved by other clubs that have been run more sensibly than us, I truly believe that we should have experienced at least one season of Premiership football in the past decade.

The trouble is that without top flight football, the sort of thing we saw on Black Friday and for much of the last nine months or so becomes inevitable when the philosophy of any club is "Premiership or bust". If the Malaysians are trying to change that way of thinking by bringing in measures like this, then they have my full support and I would say it is good news - even if it might mean a few seasons of consolidation while we try and become a "proper" football club again.

Following last month's budget we have had stacks of people from all walks of life telling us that things are going to get that bit harder for everyone over the next few years - the Government is fond of saying that "we are all in this together", so why should footballers and the football industry be exempt from this?[/quote]


i dont agree mate, it is getting worse because this makes our players dissilused, but if cut backs for now have to be made for the good of our club so be it. [/quote]


If they are dissilusioned sell them.
primadonnas playing Championship footy on £5k, £10 enev £20k a week and they can't defer a bonus for a few months.

I've seen loads of descriptions of their 'gutless' performances which was a term which disgusted me, but if a spoilt player isn't perpared to help the club out when its in trouble then they clearly haven't got the stomach for a fight so might as well be moved on.

Sell a few of them and solve the money problems at the same time.

.

But the other piece is even worse news, on returning to training the players were called into a meeting and they have all been asked to defer their bonuses and appearence fees until the end of the season. The players are holding their own meeting next week to decide collectively but I can tell you from a few individual players they are not happy about the situation.

I've got to take issue with you about this being "even worse news".

Firstly, as others have pointed out, we are talking about a deferral of bonus payments here and not a withdrawal of them.

It's ten years this month since Sam Hammam arrived at the club and since then it has consistently spent money which it didn't have and was incapable of finding without promotion to the Premiership. To be fair, all of that money has seen standards rise dramatically on the pitch, but, given the size of our debt, the wages we pay and the success achieved by other clubs that have been run more sensibly than us, I truly believe that we should have experienced at least one season of Premiership football in the past decade.

The trouble is that without top flight football, the sort of thing we saw on Black Friday and for much of the last nine months or so becomes inevitable when the philosophy of any club is "Premiership or bust". If the Malaysians are trying to change that way of thinking by bringing in measures like this, then they have my full support and I would say it is good news - even if it might mean a few seasons of consolidation while we try and become a "proper" football club again.

Following last month's budget we have had stacks of people from all walks of life telling us that things are going to get that bit harder for everyone over the next few years - the Government is fond of saying that "we are all in this together", so why should footballers and the football industry be exempt from this?

Bob I agree that from the financial point of view if we reduce the wage bill and still compete then this is obviously a good move. But I think it is bad news because of 2 things. If you have a seasons budget and you have to pay such things as bonuses from that budget what difference does it make if you pay the bonuses during or near the end of the season. Secondly if the players are not happy about it where will this leave the feeling amongst the team ?

I've got to take issue with you about this being "even worse news".

Firstly, as others have pointed out, we are talking about a deferral of bonus payments here and not a withdrawal of them.

It's ten years this month since Sam Hammam arrived at the club and since then it has consistently spent money which it didn't have and was incapable of finding without promotion to the Premiership. To be fair, all of that money has seen standards rise dramatically on the pitch, but, given the size of our debt, the wages we pay and the success achieved by other clubs that have been run more sensibly than us, I truly believe that we should have experienced at least one season of Premiership football in the past decade.

The trouble is that without top flight football, the sort of thing we saw on Black Friday and for much of the last nine months or so becomes inevitable when the philosophy of any club is "Premiership or bust". If the Malaysians are trying to change that way of thinking by bringing in measures like this, then they have my full support and I would say it is good news - even if it might mean a few seasons of consolidation while we try and become a "proper" football club again.

Following last month's budget we have had stacks of people from all walks of life telling us that things are going to get that bit harder for everyone over the next few years - the Government is fond of saying that "we are all in this together", so why should footballers and the football industry be exempt from this?

i dont agree mate, it is getting worse because this makes our players dissilused, but if cut backs for now have to be made for the good of our club so be it. [/quote]


If they are dissilusioned sell them.
primadonnas playing Championship footy on £5k, £10 enev £20k a week and they can't defer a bonus for a few months.

I've seen loads of descriptions of their 'gutless' performances which was a term which disgusted me, but if a spoilt player isn't perpared to help the club out when its in trouble then they clearly haven't got the stomach for a fight so might as well be moved on.

Sell a few of them and solve the money problems at the same time.[/quote]

Tim we have sold players every year and to the tune of £33 million in recent years but the debt has not decreased.

The problem with the players being disillusioned, is that it comes at the start of the season, where you want them focussed on the new season in hand, particularly after such a disappointing end to the last one!

We have the majority of our better players (Bothroyd, Whitts, McNaughton etc.), with only a year to run on their contracts and come January, they could sign a Pre-contract agreement with another club!

We also need to be seen to be capable of paying our way, especially if we have any aspirations of bringing in new players, whether they be loans or not, as they won't want to come to a club where the aura is one of infighting!

I know that it's the Malaysians being prudent and expecting the Eggers to start paying their way and for me, it's about time they (The Eggers) did as well!

The problem with the players being disillusioned, is that it comes at the start of the season, where you want them focussed on the new season in hand, particularly after such a disappointing end to the last one!

We have the majority of our better players (Bothroyd, Whitts, McNaughton etc.), with only a year to run on their contracts and come January, they could sign a Pre-contract agreement with another club!

We also need to be seen to be capable of paying our way, especially if we have any aspirations of bringing in new players, whether they be loans or not, as they won't want to come to a club where the aura is one of infighting!

I know that it's the Malaysians being prudent and expecting the Eggers to start paying their way and for me, it's about time they (The Eggers) did as well!

I agree 100% with you !!

I've got to take issue with you about this being "even worse news".

Firstly, as others have pointed out, we are talking about a deferral of bonus payments here and not a withdrawal of them.

It's ten years this month since Sam Hammam arrived at the club and since then it has consistently spent money which it didn't have and was incapable of finding without promotion to the Premiership. To be fair, all of that money has seen standards rise dramatically on the pitch, but, given the size of our debt, the wages we pay and the success achieved by other clubs that have been run more sensibly than us, I truly believe that we should have experienced at least one season of Premiership football in the past decade.

The trouble is that without top flight football, the sort of thing we saw on Black Friday and for much of the last nine months or so becomes inevitable when the philosophy of any club is "Premiership or bust". If the Malaysians are trying to change that way of thinking by bringing in measures like this, then they have my full support and I would say it is good news - even if it might mean a few seasons of consolidation while we try and become a "proper" football club again.

Following last month's budget we have had stacks of people from all walks of life telling us that things are going to get that bit harder for everyone over the next few years - the Government is fond of saying that "we are all in this together", so why should footballers and the football industry be exempt from this?

i dont agree mate, it is getting worse because this makes our players dissilused, but if cut backs for now have to be made for the good of our club so be it.

If they are dissilusioned sell them.
primadonnas playing Championship footy on £5k, £10 enev £20k a week and they can't defer a bonus for a few months.

I've seen loads of descriptions of their 'gutless' performances which was a term which disgusted me, but if a spoilt player isn't perpared to help the club out when its in trouble then they clearly haven't got the stomach for a fight so might as well be moved on.

Sell a few of them and solve the money problems at the same time.[/quote]

Tim we have sold players every year and to the tune of £33 million in recent years but the debt has not decreased.[/quote]


Thats a story all in itself Carl. ALthough with the refinancing in the EGM, up to £12m has come or can come, off the debt at 27/5/10.

But I'm sure you'd agree that many of the causes of that have gone now, (stadium, Ridsdale,Harris, Flitcoft etc..), if our players aren't happy and we could reduce the wage bill by £2m by shipping 3-4 high earners out and get £8m in fees then we could spend a fracion to rebuild a 'weaker' squad and put another big hole in the debt .

It seems to me that we can't afford to turn ipswich's £4m for Chopra down any more -especially when we have a reasonable option on the bench in McCormack. OK not automatic promotion material, but bringing in £4m saving £1m in wages per year and not a massive step down. Could even offer Feeney a reduced contract to cover for him

The whole issue to this story is that footballers not only here but most in general are pampered prima donnas who can't even wipe there own arse without there agents say so! They need to get back bones start thinking for themselves and think about the bigger picture!

I was due a bonus last year but didn't get it and fair enough if we all didn't do that we may not have been in a job. We never got it deferred until they can afford to pay it! If the players start to play up over this or get DISULUSIONED then f**k them join the real world and f**k off from our club we don't need you!

I'm flatterred but why is Bob Wilson's quote under my name above ?

the one that says 'it's 10 years to this month that Sam arrived ?'

Players have been paid late several times.
Now asked to defer contractually due payments - well, Ridsdale sure as hell didn't do that.

It's ridiculous to blame players over a situation they've not engineered. Were the contracts given excessive? If so, blame the people who offerd and sanctioned them.

What next? Ask Shine et al to defer as long as possible, knowing we've problems even covering payroll, in the hope they get paid at some point in the future?

Players have been paid late several times.
Now asked to defer contractually due payments - well, Ridsdale sure as hell didn't do that.

It's ridiculous to blame players over a situation they've not engineered. Were the contracts given excessive? If so, blame the people who offerd and sanctioned them.

What next? Ask Shine et al to defer as long as possible, knowing we've problems even covering payroll, in the hope they get paid at some point in the future?

Not blaming the players one bit just saying if we are in the sh1t they should be prepared to make sacrifices too.

Shine isn't the best example to support your point as they have already deferred much of their payments for a long long time. if anything we should have been selling players and cutting the wage bill before screwing companies like this.

Yes, we should be selling players.

You know that, I know that, most people know that.

The fact is, we sell Whitts, Chopra, people will be whining and moaning, lack of ambition etc.

Shine have deferred - so far. Point is, if we can't cover payroll, how longer are we going to keep asking them to defer? Can't ask them to make sacrifices, or other creditors.

We've repeatedly paid players late despite the vaunted takeover, touted as solving all our problems. We're now asking them to defer due payments, with the prospect of monthly salary continually being late in the future - sorry,I don't buy the "internatioanl transfer" money issues. You simply send the money earlier to ensure it's in place for the due pay dates.

In the real world, most people in that situation would see the writing on the wall and look for alternative employment. If players want to do so, I've no argument against that.

Wer're seemingly holding out for more money than other teams are offering when other teams have the leverage - we're skint, they know we're skint. Continuing to daudle along and not sell is hurting us.

EDIT:

And even if we do sell, we'll not be getting the bulk of the money thanks to Ridsdale.

Maybe the club are trying to force some players to leave. Star players who are in their last year have the opportunity to negotiate a better basic salary.
Bosco

Yes, we should be selling players.

You know that, I know that, most people know that.

The fact is, we sell Whitts, Chopra, people will be whining and moaning, lack of ambition etc.

Shine have deferred - so far. Point is, if we can't cover payroll, how longer are we going to keep asking them to defer? Can't ask them to make sacrifices, or other creditors.

We've repeatedly paid players late despite the vaunted takeover, touted as solving all our problems. We're now asking them to defer due payments, with the prospect of monthly salary continually being late in the future - sorry,I don't buy the "internatioanl transfer" money issues. You simply send the money earlier to ensure it's in place for the due pay dates.

In the real world, most people in that situation would see the writing on the wall and look for alternative employment. If players want to do so, I've no argument against that.

Wer're seemingly holding out for more money than other teams are offering when other teams have the leverage - we're skint, they know we're skint. Continuing to daudle along and not sell is hurting us.

EDIT:

And even if we do sell, we'll not be getting the bulk of the money thanks to Ridsdale.

Who says Shine haven't had it all (or most of it) now.

It was reported that they had been paid more than 1/2 by April.

The first player will be gone in the next week (at least) - Ledley.

Tim we have sold players every year and to the tune of £33 million in recent years but the debt has not decreased.

Thats a story all in itself Carl. ALthough with the refinancing in the EGM, up to £12m has come or can come, off the debt at 27/5/10.

But I'm sure you'd agree that many of the causes of that have gone now, (stadium, Ridsdale,Harris, Flitcoft etc..), if our players aren't happy and we could reduce the wage bill by £2m by shipping 3-4 high earners out and get £8m in fees then we could spend a fracion to rebuild a 'weaker' squad and put another big hole in the debt .

It seems to me that we can't afford to turn ipswich's £4m for Chopra down any more -especially when we have a reasonable option on the bench in McCormack. OK not automatic promotion material, but bringing in £4m saving £1m in wages per year and not a massive step down. Could even offer Feeney a reduced contract to cover for him

Or have they used the previous Langston loan note which had the £9 million naming rights in it as an opportunity to wipe £9 million off the books to balance it up a bit ?

Tim we have sold players every year and to the tune of £33 million in recent years but the debt has not decreased.

Thats a story all in itself Carl. ALthough with the refinancing in the EGM, up to £12m has come or can come, off the debt at 27/5/10.

But I'm sure you'd agree that many of the causes of that have gone now, (stadium, Ridsdale,Harris, Flitcoft etc..), if our players aren't happy and we could reduce the wage bill by £2m by shipping 3-4 high earners out and get £8m in fees then we could spend a fracion to rebuild a 'weaker' squad and put another big hole in the debt .

It seems to me that we can't afford to turn ipswich's £4m for Chopra down any more -especially when we have a reasonable option on the bench in McCormack. OK not automatic promotion material, but bringing in £4m saving £1m in wages per year and not a massive step down. Could even offer Feeney a reduced contract to cover for him

Or have they used the previous Langston loan note which had the £9 million naming rights in it as an opportunity to wipe £9 million off the books to balance it up a bit ?

That was done a long time ago Carl.
In audited accounts too.

The reduction of £12m would be made up of approx.. (and bear in mind I said 'has come or can come, off ')

£6m shares from the malaysians, (used to pay off HMRC, loans already given by Malaysians -don't conuse debt reduction with cahs-flow here, other bills)
£4m off the debts of PMG, Borley and Isaacs (debt for equity, £3.5m which hasn't been taken up by the club as yet)
other debt reduction agreements not specified in EGM minutes


In fairness I'd forgotten the £2m share issue was not taken up, well, only to the extent of £130k, so the figure is more likely £10-£11m

I would have expected these to be made openly available by now, and I'm also intrigued by the fact the board hasn't triggerred the debt/equity swaps mentioned above. That to me signals that the Malaysians may be looking to increase their stake or bring in another party.

One thought that has come into my head is whether the 'announcements' of the last few days have been to 'test the water' on a Sam return in some way, however unlikely it may be in practise'.

Also, Carl I respect your opinion (despite questioning many of your posts !) - how do you feel about Borley opposing Sam's involvement - as Borley is unquestionably the most die-hard City fan on the board at the mo, and is still owed lots of money, and on a related subject is Iaacs definately willing to work with Sam, because it certainly didnt look that way after Black monday ?

Tim I dont mind opposition to my posts thats what makes this board interesting, will Isaacs work with Sam, yes he will.

Is Sam testing the water, then the answer is no.

Does Sam want back, Yes,

Why ?

Because the club needs him. Needs him because he cares because he can run a football club and because he can help with the Langston loan note.

Tim I dont mind opposition to my posts thats what makes this board interesting, will Isaacs work with Sam, yes he will.

Is Sam testing the water, then the answer is no.

Does Sam want back, Yes,

Why ?

Because the club needs him. Needs him because he cares because he can run a football club and because he can help with the Langston loan note.

Glad about that Carl, as I hope you find the questions fair, sensible and polite.
I have no agenda except seeing our club prosper.

What has changed with Isaacs then Carl, has this come from Isaacs - or Sam. I am suprised as a few years ago Isaacs was no. 1 termite to Sam.

As for the club needing Sam, I'm not convinced, they need him/langstone to firm up the debt agreement, but in actually getting involved with running of it ... I can see more problems than solutions. There are plenty of 'football people' out there, many more stable than Sam - so why Sam ?

History shows us that Sam likes to do things his own way - how could he do that as a minority shareholder with many major shareholders and board members holding a real dislike for him and his methods. Couldn't it even trigger another - pay up, or we'll put the club into admin threat from PMG ?

And what of Borley ?

And I was looking forward to a bit of stability

lawnmower, I've met Hammam once, so can hardly be accused of being a Hammam puppet ( for any CCMB'ers reading... )

Have spoken to enough members of staff under Hammam to know the way he ran things... tough boss, to say the least.

Maybe time away from the club and football in general have mellowed him. Who knows? Maybe, should he return, he'd use a different style. Maybe being solely responsible for football with others managing the finances would enable Hammam to work on what he does best without exposing his weaker areas.

Who really knows?

The negative of Hammam was clearly the running of the finances. No question there. Should he return, I can see the positives he'd bring to the football side of things. Have a structure where A N Other gives Sam the budgets for player negotiations, transfer fees, Sam having remit to get the players in with the signing off of deals performed by AN Other... can see it working.

lawnmower, I've met Hammam once, so can hardly be accused of being a Hammam puppet ( for any CCMB'ers reading... )

Have spoken to enough members of staff under Hammam to know the way he ran things... tough boss, to say the least.

Maybe time away from the club and football in general have mellowed him. Who knows? Maybe, should he return, he'd use a different style. Maybe being solely responsible for football with others managing the finances would enable Hammam to work on what he does best without exposing his weaker areas.

Who really knows?

The negative of Hammam was clearly the running of the finances. No question there. Should he return, I can see the positives he'd bring to the football side of things. Have a structure where A N Other gives Sam the budgets for player negotiations, transfer fees, Sam having remit to get the players in with the signing off of deals performed by AN Other... can see it working.

And if it means Borley and Isaacs going and PMG demanding their money back ?

lawnmower, I've met Hammam once, so can hardly be accused of being a Hammam puppet ( for any CCMB'ers reading... )

Have spoken to enough members of staff under Hammam to know the way he ran things... tough boss, to say the least.

Maybe time away from the club and football in general have mellowed him. Who knows? Maybe, should he return, he'd use a different style. Maybe being solely responsible for football with others managing the finances would enable Hammam to work on what he does best without exposing his weaker areas.

Who really knows?

The negative of Hammam was clearly the running of the finances. No question there. Should he return, I can see the positives he'd bring to the football side of things. Have a structure where A N Other gives Sam the budgets for player negotiations, transfer fees, Sam having remit to get the players in with the signing off of deals performed by AN Other... can see it working.

And if it means Borley and Isaacs going and PMG demanding their money back ?

Something tells me that Sam wouldn't worry about that senario.

lawnmower, I've met Hammam once, so can hardly be accused of being a Hammam puppet ( for any CCMB'ers reading... )

Have spoken to enough members of staff under Hammam to know the way he ran things... tough boss, to say the least.

Maybe time away from the club and football in general have mellowed him. Who knows? Maybe, should he return, he'd use a different style. Maybe being solely responsible for football with others managing the finances would enable Hammam to work on what he does best without exposing his weaker areas.

Who really knows?

The negative of Hammam was clearly the running of the finances. No question there. Should he return, I can see the positives he'd bring to the football side of things. Have a structure where A N Other gives Sam the budgets for player negotiations, transfer fees, Sam having remit to get the players in with the signing off of deals performed by AN Other... can see it working.

And if it means Borley and Isaacs going and PMG demanding their money back ?

Would it mean that? It's all in the realm of supposition...

PMG may demand their money back; may not. Given they have what they wanted - retail park, land - the money the club owe them is a nicety but can easily be say written off due to the longer term profits they'll make. Equally, they'll get their money from the prem club monies, I thought?

Worst case cenario, Borley, Isaacs quit, PMG get uppity, then upshot is the Malaysians would almost certainly have to take more control, meaning businessmen are running the club.

That's not necessarily a bad thing.

And if it means Borley and Isaacs going and PMG demanding their money back ?[/quote]

Would it mean that? It's all in the realm of supposition...

PMG may demand their money back; may not. Given they have what they wanted - retail park, land - the money the club owe them is a nicety but can easily be say written off due to the longer term profits they'll make. Equally, they'll get their money from the prem club monies, I thought?

Worst case cenario, Borley, Isaacs quit, PMG get uppity, then upshot is the Malaysians would almost certainly have to take more control, meaning businessmen are running the club.

That's not necessarily a bad thing.[/quote]


How much are PMG owed - last shout was just under £10m - reduced by the land-sale and debt-equity now to around £8m - could be reduced further to just over £5m , but only by giving them more shares, which is against the course you are recommending.
So lets say £8m still has to be paid to them - NO WAY will they write this off, you can't be serious with this - its almost as mad as Ridsdale paying Sunderland off early when we couldnt pay the tax-man.

As for your worse case scenario, where is the money coming from to pay them off, there is another £12m of debt to come from somewhere - who, the Malaysians, whoa re already pissed off that no-one else is coming forward with cash - unlikely ?

Are you happier with the club in the hands of Sam and TG with no Borley. I'm not as he is by far the one who i trust most to look after our interests. Besides which, how long would that last ?

last seasons squqd didn't win anything did they?
I would favour selling players with one year on there contract let and bring in new players on new contracts.
It s not the first time this has happened at city.
when risdale came in to help sam several players actually accepted wage reductions.
the one who didn't was andy campbell.wheres he now.

I CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHY THE BIG EARNERS HAVEN'T BEEN SOLD.
YOU’RE RIGHT STICKY THEY WON f**k ALL LAST SEASON OR THE SEASON BEFORE