“ Breaking: Cardiff City £109 Million in debt “

New financial results show Cardiff City's debt stood at £109m last year, with owner Vincent Tan having increased his loans to the Championship club.

Link to the CCFC Accounts
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/04044254




BBC

Thursday 3rd March 2022


The club's latest accounts state Cardiff recorded losses of £11.15m for the 2020-21 season.

Revenue increased £9m to £55.18m.

While £1.92m was shaved off the wage bill.





The Bluebirds, though, remain reliant on support from majority shareholder Tan, who leant the club a further £16m during the year.

The Malaysian businessman's loans to the club are recorded in the accounts as being at £60m, although he has since converted £6.64m into equity following a new share offer.

Other loans over the year ending June 2021 included £2m from a club director, £15.8m from a finance company associated with a club director and £6.24m relating to an interest-free EFL loan offered to support clubs during the coronavirus pandemic.

Notes in the accounts reveal further loans of £22m have been subsequently taken by the club following the end of the financial year, with loans of £3.1m repaid.



MEHMET DALMAN:

In a statement accompanying the accounts, non-executive chairman Mehmet Dalman said "pressures" caused by the pandemic on football finances had "obviously meant that we have been heavily reliant upon the continued financial support of our owner Tan Sri Dato Seri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun throughout this entire period".

"As a board and a club, we are extremely grateful to the continued support of our owner and without this the future of the club would look much more precarious," he added.

In the previous financial year - in what was Cardiff's first season following relegation from the Premier League - the club reported an operating loss of £23.8m before being boosted by player sales of £13.6m.

The impact of the pandemic is clear in the accounts, with Cardiff seeing gate receipts and matchday income reduced by £2.53m in a campaign played behind closed doors.

In his statement, Dalman added that it was the club's opinion that "the level of support that we as a sport have received from national and devolved governments since the start and throughout the pandemic has been extremely disappointing".

He added that professional and amateur football "has been left very much to sort out its own problems".




As disclosed in previous sets of accounts, Cardiff have maintained a contingency provision regarding the club's dispute with Nantes over a £15m fee for Emiliano Sala.

Fifa ruled in September 2019 in favour of Nantes and ordered Cardiff to pay a first instalment, although an appeal on that ruling is currently being heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Cardiff City's immediate future on the line as hat-trick of court cases create perfect storm that could change things forever

Three court cases the Bluebirds have been fighting behind the scenes are coming to the forefront at the same time



Thursday 03rd March 2022



Vincent Tan and his Bluebirds are facing litigation on three fronts and the outcome will determine what happens next at Wales' capital city club

Cardiff City are facing one of the most important 10 week periods in their 123-year history - with the immediate future of Wales' capital city club at stake.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with whether Steve Morison keeps them in the Championship or not.

Three time-sapping legal cases the Bluebirds management have been fighting behind the scenes for a couple of years are coincidentally coming to a head together, thus creating a potential £40million-plus perfect storm for Cardiff owner Vincent Tan.

The importance of the outcome of the lawsuits can't be overstated enough in terms of what happens next.

Win them, and a re-energised Tan might choose to release the purse strings in the transfer market to bring in talented older heads next to the gifted young guns in Cardiff's team who are already offering so much promise.

Alternatively, after 12 years at the helm, Tan could look to sell a club with so much vast potential and which suddenly doesn't have such heavy legal liabilities hanging over it for any prospective new owner.

As things stand there is no suggestion Tan has any inclination to sell and remains committed to seeing through his wishes for Cardiff.

Lose the court cases, however, and Cardiff would need to find the money from somewhere, and fast - inevitably leading to significant cutbacks in the playing budget and the probable sale of star men.

That's the enormity of what is at stake here. Some shrewd pundits reckon this is the most important little period in recent memory for the club.

Cardiff can either begin compiling a team capable of stabilising in the short term and then making a genuine push for the Premier League and staying there - or they may end up with a real battle against relegation into League One next term.

Of the three cases, the Emiliano Sala appeal is the headline act and goes before the Court of Arbitration for Sport this week.

But Cardiff's colourful former owner Sam Hammam is taking High Court action in May in a bitter dispute over the Bluebirds Presidency he was given.

A third case, this time brought by ex-Cardiff director Michael Isaac, is already being heard in London and comes to a conclusion soon.

Bluebirds chairman Mehmet Dalman has been forced to spend an enormous amount of time in the background building the cases x 3 in conjunction with the club's solicitor, Chris Nott of Cardiff-based Capital Law.
Cardiff chairman Mehmet Dalman has been doing painstaking work behind the scenes on the three legal cases (Image: Gareth Everett/Huw Evans Agency)

While the litigation has been occupying their minds, Cardiff's hierarchy will dispute that they have taken their eye off the ball with regards matters on the pitch. But they certainly weren't anticipating the appalling run of results under Mick McCarthy earlier this season and the need to act upon the manager.

In time, conversations will turn to whether to keep stand-in boss Steve Morison for next year, or whether Tan goes for someone like Craig Bellamy, Michael Beale, or perhaps a more experienced hand as the club's permanent manager.

Once more, the outcome of the court cases could prove key to who Cardiff can, and cannot, afford and the type of budget that will be available in the summer transfer window.

While the focus of the fans has understandably been on the fight to remain in the Championship, the three court cases have been hovering in the background for a while and Cardiff feel they are presenting as compelling a case as possible in each of them, with the legal process needing to take its course.

These are the issues the Bluebirds are dealing with and how it could affect Tan's thinking for the way forward after more than a decade in charge.

Local businessman Isaac, who was voted off the Bluebirds Board in 2015, is suing Tan and Cardiff City Football Club (Holdings) amid claims that his shareholding was diluted.

The matter has gone before the High Court, with QCs giving their final submissions last Wednesday and the Judge will make a decision shortly.

Initially this was reported to be a £10m case, with Isaac feeling he was entitled to a certain percentage of the club's value, but that figure has come down.

The row centres around a rights issue which was open to shareholders when Tan converted a sizeable portion of his debt to equity a few years backs.

Tan owns in excess of 90 per cent of the club today and Isaac feels he has in effect been neutralised and victimised.

The Judge has to determine whether Isaac's shares were diluted unfairly. If so he could get four per cent of the value of the club, whereas Cardiff argue it should be 1.28 per cent.

However, the Bluebirds also feel the shares are in effect worthless because the debt is greater than the club's current value.

Even when Cardiff were a Premier League team, and potentially worth up to £100m for argument's sake, the debt owed was higher than that.

The Judge has the facts, he's heard the two sides of the story and should make his verdict known within a matter of weeks.

Cardiff feel their case is very strong, but will the Isaac underdog factor have any bearing?
Sam Hammam (ex-Cardiff owner)

This £15m case is due to go to trial in London mid-May - and it could be explosive with Hammam and Tan each called as star witnesses.

Fair to say that should be fun, if so.

The dispute revolves around the terms of the Presidency Hammam was given as part of the agreement over the historical £24m Langston loan notes debt, which had been a problem for many years.

Tan and Hammam are forceful characters and neither man is backing down at present.

Hammam, a 75-year-old Lebanese businessman, was Cardiff owner between 2000-2006 and it was under his stewardship that the Bluebirds' success this century was kick-started, with promotions from League Two and League One.

Tan has since taken things onto the next level, Cardiff winning two promotions to the Premier League and regularly challenging near the top of the Championship.

As part of what Cardiff felt was an act of goodwill whilst paying off the problematic Langston debt, Tan also negotiated a new Cardiff role of President for Hammam.

Although officially called a 'Ceremonial, Non-Executive' position, a formal contract was drawn up whereby Hammam could attend matches, receive privileges, act as a figurehead and help promote the image of the club. There was also the suggestion of powers enabling every area access on match-day, including the dressing room, and the possibility of Hammam seeing the contracts of managers and players.

Many will feel those last two should be the domain of the manager, owner, chairman and chief executive only.

Whatever, Tan and Hammam quickly fell out. Hammam stopped coming to matches and the two parties appear poles apart in what they feel the monetary value should be of the Cardiff City Presidency.

Cardiff believe the role entitles you to top seats home and away, car parking, pre-match meals and the glamour that goes with being able to walk football's corridors of power.

Hammam is understood to be arguing the position was created for him as part of a package to reduce the Langston debt.

The Bluebirds dispute this.

Hammam still retains something of an obsession about Cardiff City FC, feels that he has unfinished business at the club he left shortly before the new stadium was built and that under his stewardship the Bluebirds would thrive.

So how will this one play out?

The two parties could choose to settle out of court to avoid a public slanging match and dragging the club's name through the mud in the courts.

However, as things stand it's not clear how this can be achieved given the amount Hammam is claiming and Cardiff insisting he can't have anything remotely resembling that sum.

If Tan and Hammam do each end up in the witness box, this could become Welsh football's trial of the century.

Emiliano Sala and CAS
Where to start with this one?

Let's just say it is an enormously complicated case and not as simple as saying 'Sala was a Cardiff player, the club should pay up.'

The Bluebirds were ordered by FIFA to pay the first instalment to Nantes of the £15m fee originally agreed to buy the Argentine striker during the Premier League campaign under Neil Warnock.

Cardiff are the appellant at the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration of Sport, in effect appealing to a higher court for a reversal of the decision made by a lower body.

The case is due to begin towards the end of next week, with a three-man arbitration panel sitting in judgement in Lausanne. It will be headed up by Professor Ulrich Hass, a 58-year-old sport law specialist who has previously adjudicated on controversial issues arising from the Olympics and Formula One.

Because the Sala case involves English law, French law and also Swiss law (when it comes to football matters), Cardiff and Nantes each have an Army of lawyers fighting their case. Cardiff have 16 involved, Nantes 18.

Sala's inquest is currently taking place in Bournemouth and is likely to still be going on while the CAS hearing takes place.

Cardiff are understood to have asked for a short delay so the inquest could be completed, but as things stand the hearing is due to go ahead towards the end of this week.

Trying to simplify an enormously complicated matter as best possible, Cardiff's case in effect boils down to two main things.

Who is responsible for the money and who is liable for the incident?

A provision of £21m was mentioned in previous accounts to cover the Sala costs, but with Cardiff also emphasising they didn't think it would be payable. There is a difference, however, between that sum being on the balance sheet and Tan actually needing to suddenly find the money.

Two days of intense legal arguments are about to commence and what CAS decide is anyone's guess at the moment, although Cardiff feel they can have done no more in presenting their arguments
So what happens next with Tan?

Back to the very outset of this article, Cardiff's future hinges on the outcome of the court cases.

If Cardiff win the three of them, the financial situation would be substantially eased and they could look to kick on by signing quality players and push for the Premier League.

Who the manager should be, be that Morison or a new man, would be the subject of discussions.

But Cardiff could certainly afford to be ambitious in those circumstances.

Alternatively, after 12 years of ownership, Tan could choose to sell the club, a more attractive proposition for would-be new owners unburdened by the current legal liabilities which are bound to otherwise put people off.

If Cardiff lose the three cases, further cutbacks would be inevitable given the hammering Tan's business empire has already taken during the pandemic. That's just the reality of the economics.

If there is a mix and match, win one, lose two - or even win two of them - Cardiff would find that a little more manageable, but again there would need to be cutbacks.

It could well be that, like this season, Cardiff remain a club in transition for the next couple of years, the younger players gaining more experience before they look to kick on further down the line

There is little doubt that with a couple of years more Championship experience behind them, talents like Rubin Colwill, Isaak Davies, Joel Bagan, Mark McGuinness and Ryan Wintle - with others as well - could form the nucleus of a successful team moving forward.

It was hugely crucial Morison kept Cardiff in the Championship this year and he appears to have done that.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

So debt not at all going down
should never be in this situation.

So Vincent Tan the owner of Cardiff City owes Vincent Tan £109m.
Its like me lending my kids £100 ,they owe me , but I'm never going to see it !

If I am reading this correctly, we are on the right side of FFP, I am sure I saw that clubs needed to post over £13M per year over 3 years to fall into that trap.

So Vincent Tan the owner of Cardiff City owes Vincent Tan £109m.
Its like me lending my kids £100 ,they owe me , but I'm never going to see it !

Oh thats perfect then all these years later the debt is higher and club run so well, their is a debt and that is worrying, not a f joke

Cardiff City's immediate future on the line as hat-trick of court cases create perfect storm that could change things forever

Three court cases the Bluebirds have been fighting behind the scenes are coming to the forefront at the same time

Correct me if I’m wrong but the only case that financially affects Cardiff is the Sala one, no? The other 2 cases are against Tan and not CCFC? Yet the article talks as if all 3 cases are against the club.

Considering we already have £21m set aside in case we lose the Sala case I don’t understand why the article says we’ll need to find the money to pay out if we lose? If we lose the Isaac or Hamman case the money comes from Tan, not CCFC. If we lose the Sala case the lost money has already been taken into account.

As far as I can tell, if we lose the Sala case our finances stay as they currently are. If we win we get a £21m “boost” to our finances and if we compromise we’ll get ~£10m extra to spend.

Unless I’m completely mistaken about the whole thing?

So debt not at all going down
should never be in this situation.

It shouldn't happen; but you're mis-reading the realities (again)

Club debt = Tan debt

Don't let that stop your negative agenda, though; it's probably the only thing that puts a smile on your face...

New financial results show Cardiff City's debt stood at £109m last year, with owner Vincent Tan having increased his loans to the Championship club.



BBC

Thursday 3rd March 2022


The club's latest accounts state Cardiff recorded losses of £11.15m for the 2020-21 season.

Revenue increased £9m to £55.18m.

While £1.92m was shaved off the wage bill.





The Bluebirds, though, remain reliant on support from majority shareholder Tan, who leant the club a further £16m during the year.

The Malaysian businessman's loans to the club are recorded in the accounts as being at £60m, although he has since converted £6.64m into equity following a new share offer.

Other loans over the year ending June 2021 included £2m from a club director, £15.8m from a finance company associated with a club director and £6.24m relating to an interest-free EFL loan offered to support clubs during the coronavirus pandemic.

Notes in the accounts reveal further loans of £22m have been subsequently taken by the club following the end of the financial year, with loans of £3.1m repaid.



MEHMET DALMAN:

In a statement accompanying the accounts, non-executive chairman Mehmet Dalman said "pressures" caused by the pandemic on football finances had "obviously meant that we have been heavily reliant upon the continued financial support of our owner Tan Sri Dato Seri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun throughout this entire period".

"As a board and a club, we are extremely grateful to the continued support of our owner and without this the future of the club would look much more precarious," he added.

In the previous financial year - in what was Cardiff's first season following relegation from the Premier League - the club reported an operating loss of £23.8m before being boosted by player sales of £13.6m.

The impact of the pandemic is clear in the accounts, with Cardiff seeing gate receipts and matchday income reduced by £2.53m in a campaign played behind closed doors.

In his statement, Dalman added that it was the club's opinion that "the level of support that we as a sport have received from national and devolved governments since the start and throughout the pandemic has been extremely disappointing".

He added that professional and amateur football "has been left very much to sort out its own problems".




As disclosed in previous sets of accounts, Cardiff have maintained a contingency provision regarding the club's dispute with Nantes over a £15m fee for Emiliano Sala.

Fifa ruled in September 2019 in favour of Nantes and ordered Cardiff to pay a first instalment, although an appeal on that ruling is currently being heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

So when the 45 million gets converted from debt to equity as stayed recently it will be 68 million with a potential 15 million more coming off the debt
If we win the sala case ,seems a lot better than I thought basically this season accounts and balance sheet due next year will look a lot better . Imagine if we didn't have tans money keeping us afloat during the last two years we would be another Derby.

Cardiff City's immediate future on the line as hat-trick of court cases create perfect storm that could change things forever

Three court cases the Bluebirds have been fighting behind the scenes are coming to the forefront at the same time

Correct me if I’m wrong but the only case that financially affects Cardiff is the Sala one, no? The other 2 cases are against Tan and not CCFC? Yet the article talks as if all 3 cases are against the club.

Considering we already have £21m set aside in case we lose the Sala case I don’t understand why the article says we’ll need to find the money to pay out if we lose? If we lose the Isaac or Hamman case the money comes from Tan, not CCFC. If we lose the Sala case the lost money has already been taken into account.

As far as I can tell, if we lose the Sala case our finances stay as they currently are. If we win we get a £21m “boost” to our finances and if we compromise we’ll get ~£10m extra to spend.

Unless I’m completely mistaken about the whole thing?

Every word printed is the BBC.


Tan has personally signed the agreement with Sam.

Cardiff City's immediate future on the line as hat-trick of court cases create perfect storm that could change things forever

Three court cases the Bluebirds have been fighting behind the scenes are coming to the forefront at the same time

Correct me if I’m wrong but the only case that financially affects Cardiff is the Sala one, no? The other 2 cases are against Tan and not CCFC? Yet the article talks as if all 3 cases are against the club.

Considering we already have £21m set aside in case we lose the Sala case I don’t understand why the article says we’ll need to find the money to pay out if we lose? If we lose the Isaac or Hamman case the money comes from Tan, not CCFC. If we lose the Sala case the lost money has already been taken into account.

As far as I can tell, if we lose the Sala case our finances stay as they currently are. If we win we get a £21m “boost” to our finances and if we compromise we’ll get ~£10m extra to spend.

Unless I’m completely mistaken about the whole thing?

Every word printed is the BBC.


Tan has personally signed the agreement with Sam.

Yes so doesn't effect the clubs accounts as Sam is suing Tan personally?

Cardiff City had three years of parachute payments where many other clubs in the Championship did not or those promoted from League 1.

Dalman can say what he likes, Dalman and Choo are running the every day business and are 100% doing an awful job.

So debt not at all going down
should never be in this situation.

We were closer to 200 million a few years ago but Tan has consistently wrote of his debt .

Reply FB:

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

So debt not at all going down
should never be in this situation.

We were closer to 200 million a few years ago but Tan has consistently wrote of his debt .

f*cking hell how the hell did Tan get us £200m in debt?
As everyone says he had over the years six years of parachute payments, not looking like he knows how to run a football club?

So debt not at all going down
should never be in this situation.

It shouldn't happen; but you're mis-reading the realities (again)

Club debt = Tan debt

Don't let that stop your negative agenda, though; it's probably the only thing that puts a smile on your face...

Mate, what is their to be positive about, u happy the way club run? the debt you think is a good running football club?

So debt not at all going down
should never be in this situation.

It shouldn't happen; but you're mis-reading the realities (again)

Club debt = Tan debt

Don't let that stop your negative agenda, though; it's probably the only thing that puts a smile on your face...

Mate, what is their to be positive about, u happy the way club run? the debt you think is a good running football club?

Spell check is your friend. Text speak is not.

So debt not at all going down
should never be in this situation.

It shouldn't happen; but you're mis-reading the realities (again)

Club debt = Tan debt

Don't let that stop your negative agenda, though; it's probably the only thing that puts a smile on your face...

Mate, what is their to be positive about, u happy the way club run? the debt you think is a good running football club?

How about not subject to FFP sanctions, not having a fire sale of players, not in danger of administration/winding up, a transparent debt to our owner (unlike previous owners) that won’t come in to play unless he decides to sell, an academy that finally works (admittedly overdue), safe from relegation and an actual future philosophy on the playing side that we’ve wanted for years.

Not all bad, although we’d all prefer us to be self sustaining not many Championship clubs manage that.

And this was the last year of our parachute payments, next year's accounts will be interesting


Fans argue that the size of our debt was not really a problem seeing that it was only owed to Vincent Tan, but now the number of loans from other parties is creeping up.

And this was the last year of our parachute payments, next year's accounts will be interesting


Fans argue that the size of our debt was not really a problem seeing that it was only owed to Vincent Tan, but now the number of loans from other parties is creeping up.

the 33 million loans was from another one of Tans companies ,basically it's still tan

We had the good news that morrisson has signed for a further 12 months and there will be money available next season
We then have the rug pulled from under us and there was me looking forward to next season
then we have posts about debt and court cases and feel deflated again but i suppose its nowhere near as bad as the poor people of ukraine and next season is a long way off yet.

Thank goodness the City have Vincent Tan behind them, keeping the club running.

So debt not at all going down
should never be in this situation.

It shouldn't happen; but you're mis-reading the realities (again)

Club debt = Tan debt

Don't let that stop your negative agenda, though; it's probably the only thing that puts a smile on your face...

Mate, what is their to be positive about, u happy the way club run? the debt you think is a good running football club?

Now lets be positive could be derby.. could be the other 6 clubs or more facing points deduction next season? AND you can count clubs without any debt on your one hand.... and if you think tan runs club badly you obviously dont look at football in general as there are far worse owners than tan who have lost clubs there grounds or sold the ground leaving them in precarious
position ask coventry fans for one about their ground..?

So debt not at all going down
should never be in this situation.

It shouldn't happen; but you're mis-reading the realities (again)

Club debt = Tan debt

Don't let that stop your negative agenda, though; it's probably the only thing that puts a smile on your face...

Mate, what is their to be positive about, u happy the way club run? the debt you think is a good running football club?

Being totally honest, I believe Vincent Tan has made big mistakes but has also had very poor advice in the past (from within the club and some slightly detached well knowns with a vested interest) that he has and continues to rectify now he is getting to grips with the realities of what he has effectively allowed to develop through others mis-management and expenditure

It says a lot that Neil Warnock was allowed to bypass the middle men when pushing for the Sala transfer and (regardless of the teagedy that occurred) it seems to say a lot about the goings on at the club

So, in answer, no, I don't believe the club has been run overly well and I do think it could/should have been better but Vincent Tan, perceived by some to be some kind of anti-Christ, has not been the worse thing to hapoen to this club either

We can talk all day about his errors but he literally saved us from going under and ploughed money into the club to make the dream a reality

Let's be honest, who in their wildest dreams ever thought we'd have an owner ploughing £200m+ into our club?

Certainly not me or the vast majority who watched through the dark years of the 70's, 80's and 90's

What I will concede is that I enjoyed the Sam years better and given the spending of the current owner, I would have more expected than hoped that we would now be in the Premier League rather than the lower Championship

The blatant truth is that Vincent Tan has not been all bad. He's just not Sam and I understand that. Sam brought the supporters on board with his clever antics, whilst Vincent Tan is a little bit more removed; largely down to adverse and often excessive reactions from some supporters

I've said before, I appreciate what both men have done for our club and I would love to see a scenario where they could work together (a whole debate on its own)

But, despite comments to the contrary from posters like your good self (and there are a lot worse) there is positivity surrounding the club and acceptance of that would just be nice to see now and then

Despite the Court cases, it's (currently) not all doom and gloom at the CCS and I'm enjoying the on-field show again after the Neil Harris and Mick McCarthy failures

As Bluebird, I am always optimistic and I (almost have to) believe good times are around the corner

Under a financially reformed owner and under the guidance of a determined manager in Steve Morison, I look forward to next season and beyond with some of thecaforementioned optimism

Cardiff City's immediate future on the line as hat-trick of court cases create perfect storm that could change things forever

Three court cases the Bluebirds have been fighting behind the scenes are coming to the forefront at the same time

Correct me if I’m wrong but the only case that financially affects Cardiff is the Sala one, no? The other 2 cases are against Tan and not CCFC? Yet the article talks as if all 3 cases are against the club.

Considering we already have £21m set aside in case we lose the Sala case I don’t understand why the article says we’ll need to find the money to pay out if we lose? If we lose the Isaac or Hamman case the money comes from Tan, not CCFC. If we lose the Sala case the lost money has already been taken into account.

As far as I can tell, if we lose the Sala case our finances stay as they currently are. If we win we get a £21m “boost” to our finances and if we compromise we’ll get ~£10m extra to spend.

Unless I’m completely mistaken about the whole thing?

Every word printed is the BBC.


Tan has personally signed the agreement with Sam.

I understand it’s a journalist not connected to the club but my understanding was only the Sala case was against CCFC yet the article makes it sound like all 3 are. If the money has been set aside for the Sala case then we don’t need to “find money” as the article makes out.

That’s where my confusion is coming from.

So debt not at all going down
should never be in this situation.

It shouldn't happen; but you're mis-reading the realities (again)

Club debt = Tan debt

Don't let that stop your negative agenda, though; it's probably the only thing that puts a smile on your face...

Mate, what is their to be positive about, u happy the way club run? the debt you think is a good running football club?

Being totally honest, I believe Vincent Tan has made big mistakes but has also had very poor advice in the past (from within the club and some slightly detached well knowns with a vested interest) that he has and continues to rectify now he is getting to grips with the realities of what he has effectively allowed to develop through others mis-management and expenditure

It says a lot that Neil Warnock was allowed to bypass the middle men when pushing for the Sala transfer and (regardless of the teagedy that occurred) it seems to say a lot about the goings on at the club

So, in answer, no, I don't believe the club has been run overly well and I do think it could/should have been better but Vincent Tan, perceived by some to be some kind of anti-Christ, has not been the worse thing to hapoen to this club either

We can talk all day about his errors but he literally saved us from going under and ploughed money into the club to make the dream a reality

Let's be honest, who in their wildest dreams ever thought we'd have an owner ploughing £200m+ into our club?

Certainly not me or the vast majority who watched through the dark years of the 70's, 80's and 90's

What I will concede is that I enjoyed the Sam years better and given the spending of the current owner, I would have more expected than hoped that we would now be in the Premier League rather than the lower Championship

The blatant truth is that Vincent Tan has not been all bad. He's just not Sam and I understand that. Sam brought the supporters on board with his clever antics, whilst Vincent Tan is a little bit more removed; largely down to adverse and often excessive reactions from some supporters

I've said before, I appreciate what both men have done for our club and I would love to see a scenario where they could work together (a whole debate on its own)

But, despite comments to the contrary from posters like your good self (and there are a lot worse) there is positivity surrounding the club and acceptance of that would just be nice to see now and then

Despite the Court cases, it's (currently) not all doom and gloom at the CCS and I'm enjoying the on-field show again after the Neil Harris and Mick McCarthy failures

As Bluebird, I am always optimistic and I (almost have to) believe good times are around the corner

Under a financially reformed owner and under the guidance of a determined manager in Steve Morison, I look forward to next season and beyond with some of thecaforementioned optimism

Great Post

So debt not at all going down
should never be in this situation.

It shouldn't happen; but you're mis-reading the realities (again)

Club debt = Tan debt

Don't let that stop your negative agenda, though; it's probably the only thing that puts a smile on your face...

Mate, what is their to be positive about, u happy the way club run? the debt you think is a good running football club?

Being totally honest, I believe Vincent Tan has made big mistakes but has also had very poor advice in the past (from within the club and some slightly detached well knowns with a vested interest) that he has and continues to rectify now he is getting to grips with the realities of what he has effectively allowed to develop through others mis-management and expenditure

It says a lot that Neil Warnock was allowed to bypass the middle men when pushing for the Sala transfer and (regardless of the teagedy that occurred) it seems to say a lot about the goings on at the club

So, in answer, no, I don't believe the club has been run overly well and I do think it could/should have been better but Vincent Tan, perceived by some to be some kind of anti-Christ, has not been the worse thing to hapoen to this club either

We can talk all day about his errors but he literally saved us from going under and ploughed money into the club to make the dream a reality

Let's be honest, who in their wildest dreams ever thought we'd have an owner ploughing £200m+ into our club?

Certainly not me or the vast majority who watched through the dark years of the 70's, 80's and 90's

What I will concede is that I enjoyed the Sam years better and given the spending of the current owner, I would have more expected than hoped that we would now be in the Premier League rather than the lower Championship

The blatant truth is that Vincent Tan has not been all bad. He's just not Sam and I understand that. Sam brought the supporters on board with his clever antics, whilst Vincent Tan is a little bit more removed; largely down to adverse and often excessive reactions from some supporters

I've said before, I appreciate what both men have done for our club and I would love to see a scenario where they could work together (a whole debate on its own)

But, despite comments to the contrary from posters like your good self (and there are a lot worse) there is positivity surrounding the club and acceptance of that would just be nice to see now and then

Despite the Court cases, it's (currently) not all doom and gloom at the CCS and I'm enjoying the on-field show again after the Neil Harris and Mick McCarthy failures

As Bluebird, I am always optimistic and I (almost have to) believe good times are around the corner

Under a financially reformed owner and under the guidance of a determined manager in Steve Morison, I look forward to next season and beyond with some of thecaforementioned optimism

Great Post

I agree.

Are you seriously some of you not reading the accounts correctly and report?

The report suggests the debt to Tan is now around £53 million, but the overall debt stands at £109 million. So who do the club owe the balance of £56 million to?


what would happen to the debts if Tan snuffs it, I wonder? There's always been this notion that the debts are of no great concern as they are owed either to the club's 70 year-old owner or his companies. But what happens if and when he shuffles off this mortal coil?

For some reason Keith Morgan has stated he was barred by the Directors?


From Keith Morgan:



In past years I have been able to see the accounts before they were filed (on the strict condition which I always stuck to) of not releasing my commentary until the accounts were available for others to view on the public file at Companies House. This enabled me to have useful conversations with the clubs internal financial experts to discuss anomalies and avoid any factual errors or misunderstandings on my part. The report would then go out to Trust members, other fans and the media on the day of publication.



This year ,for reasons which they haven`t explained, the directors barred me from doing the same exercise so I have only seen the accounts at the same time as everyone else and could only be if start preparing my commentary this afternoon. It is done and has been sent round to my fellow Trust board members first for distribution to Trust members , hopefully this evening in its entirety. So please bear with me.

Keith

I always wait for Keith's expert analysis of the figures so look forward to reading his report when available.