What are the rules that prevent Tan converting debt to equity?

N/T...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt

N/T...

---

Not telling? :shrug:

It's because he has to do the opposite of what he says. Like when he said "we'll always be red".

These are the rules: https://www.efl.com/-more/governance...y-regulations/

Section 5.3 explains how much equity can be put in each year I think but I’ve not read it all. Let us all know where it says he can pay off the debt in one go

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penarth Blues

These are the rules: https://www.efl.com/-more/governance...y-regulations/

Section 5.3 explains how much equity can be put in each year I think but I’ve not read it all. Let us all know where it says he can pay off the debt in one go

---

That info is for championship clubs, as we are now in the premiership, surely they don't apply, is there anywhere that shows the rules for premiership clubs?

It's his money at the end of the day, he's continually bailing us out, while the interest we are paying is very low (nil?) There's essentially very little difference to us whether his investment is in the form of debt or equity.

This idea that if he suddenly converted all the debt to equity then there would suddenly be more funds available for lavish transfer fees is odd, where do people think that money is going to be coming from?

The Championship rules are the ones we should be interested in because thats where we have been for the last four years and thats how long BIS has been moaning about the issue. As far as I am aware VT has converted the maximum amount each year. Will that stop BIS banging on about it or derailing threads left, right and centre - I very much doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penarth Blues

These are the rules: https://www.efl.com/-more/governance...y-regulations/

Section 5.3 explains how much equity can be put in each year I think but I’ve not read it all. Let us all know where it says he can pay off the debt in one go

---

Steady on old bean, we have been waiting 2 weeks for him to prove that everyone involved in the sin bin trial "Hates it!".

One step at a time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38065587

Choo said the club must adhere to Malaysian regulatory controls during the process of clearing the debt.

I don't know Malaysian law but it might be like China where it is difficult to get money out. That's where Villa have come unstuck, the Chinese government won't allow Xia to pump money in anymore. I hope he converts them sooner rather than later, having said that, now we're in the Prem, he's probably going to pay off a decent chunk of the debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dml1954

The Championship rules are the ones we should be interested in because thats where we have been for the last four years and thats how long BIS has been moaning about the issue.

---

Not sure why he, by his own admission is not a Cardiff City fan, is greatly bothered by the issue.

As a club we need to pay off this debt. We can’t expect a business man to shoulder it all. It is club debt as it stands.

He substantially owns the club, over 90% share holding I think, so id there is a debt he owes it to himself.
If he pays off the debt he will be paying himself. He doesn't take interest so that cannot be the reason for keeping it debt rather than equity.
So the only reason to write off the debt is to make the club easier for him to sell.
If that is the case I hope he never writes it off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penarth Blues

These are the rules: https://www.efl.com/-more/governance...y-regulations/

Section 5.3 explains how much equity can be put in each year I think but I’ve not read it all. Let us all know where it says he can pay off the debt in one go

---

Thanks for that, it's all there in black and white - seems pretty clear to me. I think. It would appear that where Vincent Tan got it wrong in 2015 (or was it 2016?) when he talked of converting nearly £70 million of debt into equity within a matter of months was that he was unaware that such large numbers were no longer allowed - can't remember anyone pointing this out to him at the time either (in public anyway).

Here's a story from 2010 about Man City's conversion of over £300 million of debt into equity with the line being that the club did it while they still could.

https://www.ft.com/content/f0b08520-...2-00144feab49a

[I[/I]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J R Hartley

Steady on old bean, we have been waiting 2 weeks for him to prove that everyone involved in the sin bin trial "Hates it!".

One step at a time.

---

:hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penarth Blues

These are the rules: https://www.efl.com/-more/governance...y-regulations/

Section 5.3 explains how much equity can be put in each year I think but I’ve not read it all. Let us all know where it says he can pay off the debt in one go

---

Thanks for a serious response. These rules were for the 2016/17 season. What were the rules that prevented him from converting debt to equity when he made his announcement on Feb 2016?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt

Thanks for a serious response. These rules were for the 2016/17 season. What were the rules that prevented him from converting debt to equity when he made his announcement on Feb 2016?

---

When you started this thread I was laughing to think that after all your moaning you don't actually know the rules yourself. We have seen it stated time and again that it is Malaysian financial rules that are the problem so why don't you write and ask the Malaysian Government/Embassy if it concerns you so much. nobody else much cares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

It's his money at the end of the day, he's continually bailing us out, while the interest we are paying is very low (nil?) There's essentially very little difference to us whether his investment is in the form of debt or equity.

This idea that if he suddenly converted all the debt to equity then there would suddenly be more funds available for lavish transfer fees is odd, where do people think that money is going to be coming from?

---

If he were to convert the debt to equity and to try and maximise his investment he would need to sell the club for the current value plus the current debt. Circa I guess £160m. I think he would have to sell at a substantial loss.
In which case he might as well do what the Sunderland owner did and sell the shares / write of the debts.

VT’s only realistic route to reducing the debt is to use the PL dosh to pay it off. That will not happen if the money is spent on players and wages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38065587

Choo said the club must adhere to Malaysian regulatory controls during the process of clearing the debt.

I don't know Malaysian law but it might be like China where it is difficult to get money out. That's where Villa have come unstuck, the Chinese government won't allow Xia to pump money in anymore. I hope he converts them sooner rather than later, having said that, now we're in the Prem, he's probably going to pay off a decent chunk of the debt.

---

This was my understanding - that it was Malaysian regulations that prevented this from happening. If it is, I can't find any such regulations, but I can find lots of examples of Malaysians investing 100s of millions in the U.K. Which makes me think this is more about FFP. I'm now wondering what the rules were in February 2016 (Prnarth's post points at 2016/17) when Tan publicly announced an immediate debt to conversion of £68m.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Igovernor

That info is for championship clubs, as we are now in the premiership, surely they don't apply, is there anywhere that shows the rules for premiership clubs?

---

Cardiff were a Championship club at the time Tan made his statement. But that statement was made before 2016/17.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

When you started this thread I was laughing to think that after all your moaning you don't actually know the rules yourself. We have seen it stated time and again that it is Malaysian financial rules that are the problem so why don't you write and ask the Malaysian Government/Embassy if it concerns you so much. nobody else much cares.

---

Ok - so I can stop replying to you because you are making this a thread about personalities and not about the subject matter.

If it is down to Malaysian financial rules - why are these rules not preventing other investments from Malaysians? Like Battersea for example? BTW that question is not to xsnaggle but to people who may know the answer.

On the other hand, maybe he's changed his mind.
Maybe on looking into it in more detail a decision made inn2016 had more negative implications than he originally realised, so he's decided he doesn't want to do it any more. It's his money, he can do that, it's not as though he needs to hold a referendum...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt

This was my understanding - that it was Malaysian regulations that prevented this from happening. If it is, I can't find any such regulations, but I can find lots of examples of Malaysians investing 100s of millions in the U.K. Which makes me think this is more about FFP. I'm now wondering what the rules were in February 2016 (Prnarth's post points at 2016/17) when Tan publicly announced an immediate debt to conversion of £68m.

---

We can't speculate, he's converted a great deal of debt to equity. I don't really like the bloke but I don't think you can argue with too much of what he's done since Warnock's came in. He's kept his mouth shut, for one, and been on the periphery. If the rebrand never happened, I think most would quite like him.

Ok - just checking that article again and these rules were in place in 2015/16. I would assume someone at the club would have known about them. So, now I am wondering about the levels of competency at the club (the club fell foul of bonus rules in 2013/14, so they have form). Tan was, at best, being premature in declaring his debt to conversion equity. It's a shame that still some people think that debt to equity conversion happened, but I now understand why it possibly didn't. Incredible that no-one in the corridors of power was aware of it in February 2016 though.

I can now stop talking about debt to equity conversion, but still have lots of questions about the debt that I will pose at another time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt

Ok - just checking that article again and these rules were in place in 2015/16. I would assume someone at the club would have known about them. So, now I am wondering about the levels of competency at the club (the club fell foul of bonus rules in 2013/14, so they have form). Tan was, at best, being premature in declaring his debt to conversion equity. It's a shame that still some people think that debt to equity conversion happened, but I now understand why it possibly didn't. Incredible that no-one in the corridors of power was aware of it in February 2016 though.

I can now stop talking about debt to equity conversion, but still have lots of questions about the debt that I will pose at another time.

---

There was me thinking that not only was the shirt badly ironed, the colour had run and been shredded in the washing machine... :biggrin:

Apparently there are others still hanging up in the wardrobe :rollseyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa

We can't speculate, he's converted a great deal of debt to equity. I don't really like the bloke but I don't think you can argue with too much of what he's done since Warnock's came in. He's kept his mouth shut, for one, and been on the periphery. If the rebrand never happened, I think most would quite like him.

---

To be fair, if it wasn't for the rebrand, he'd be acclaimed as the new messiah.