Vincent Tan's wealth, and Langston debt...

I dont understand why VT has allowed the debt owed to Langston to become 25% of his total wealth? When he could have settled it as a measly 6% of his total wealth yesterday?

Also I understand that VT owns (what was it?) 33% of the club? So why are they fully responsible to pay the whole £27 odd million.

Am I missing something?

vt is worth a few billion so i dunno where ur getting percentages of his total wealth from

I dont understand why VT has allowed the debt owed to Langston to become 25% of his total wealth? When he could have settled it as a measly 6% of his total wealth yesterday?

Also I understand that VT owns (what was it?) 33% of the club? So why are they fully responsible to pay the whole £27 odd million.

Am I missing something?

On the first point, Tan is no idiot. Debt could have been paid at 7/10m whatever the figure was.

Any savvy businessman says to themselves - hang on a second. Sure, their debt is unsecured, but they are willing to knock the debt down to 20-40% of the original debt, something semlls incredibly funny and rat like.

Langston showed weakness. That usually rings bells, so I can only assume that, looking into the whole loan business they've established the position they can tell Langston to go whistle with little comeback.

vt is worth a few billion so i dunno where ur getting percentages of his total wealth from

Whoops!

I meant 2.5%/3% of his total wealth missed the "decimal point!"

but he could have settled it for as little as 0.6%

(Still you get my point without being to fickle of my maths and percentages)

and being a measly 2-3% of his wealth why doesnt he just pay it off and think f**k it there we go! not much damage to my bank balance! (not as easy as that - but come on!)

I dont understand why VT has allowed the debt owed to Langston to become 25% of his total wealth? When he could have settled it as a measly 6% of his total wealth yesterday?

Also I understand that VT owns (what was it?) 33% of the club? So why are they fully responsible to pay the whole £27 odd million.

Am I missing something?

On the first point, Tan is no idiot. Debt could have been paid at 7/10m whatever the figure was.

Any savvy businessman says to themselves - hang on a second. Sure, their debt is unsecured, but they are willing to knock the debt down to 20-40% of the original debt, something semlls incredibly funny and rat like.

Langston showed weakness. That usually rings bells, so I can only assume that, looking into the whole loan business they've established the position they can tell Langston to go whistle with little comeback.

Which is based on your guess work? and what about the responsibilty to pay the WHOLE debt? the malaysians dont own the WHOLE club do they?

and being a measly 2-3% of his wealth why doesnt he just pay it off and think f**k it there we go! not much damage to my bank balance! (not as easy as that - but come on!)

You can say that, you're a fan of the club.

Tan is a businessman. Makes no sense to him to personally pay something off that he may well have no need to.

I dont understand why VT has allowed the debt owed to Langston to become 25% of his total wealth? When he could have settled it as a measly 6% of his total wealth yesterday?

Also I understand that VT owns (what was it?) 33% of the club? So why are they fully responsible to pay the whole £27 odd million.

Am I missing something?

Dont see why he should pay off all the debt if only 33% hows he going to get that back, honestly??

You dont get rich giving millions away do you!