Club Debt

[jon1959]

From BBC today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43321872

Cardiff City's debt remains at more than £100m, with much of it owed to owner Vincent Tan.

Accounts for the year ending May 2017 show the club made losses of over £21.3m, including a £4.35m drop in revenue.

This was despite efforts to cut the player wage bill to £20.6m, an 18% reduction on the previous year.

Cardiff City chairman Mehmet Dalman said the club was in "good hands off the pitch".

Accounts recently filed with Companies House state that Tan intends to continue to support the club for the "foreseeable future", with debt to the Malaysian businessman and majority shareholders standing at over £115m at the end of the 2016-17 season.

Tan has also written off some of the money owed to him by the Bluebirds following his takeover in 2010, and has converted some of his debt into equity.

The accounts state Tan waived interest owed to him up to May 2017, but "continued to make further funds available in order to provide the company with additional working capital".

They show further borrowing of over £22.1m, including £11m owed to Tormen Finance Inc, "a company which a director of Cardiff City Football Club Limited has a significance influence over".

In his statement, Dalman insisted the club was in "good hands" off the pitch and that manager Neil Warnock was "a catalyst" for "the beginning of a new era where the supporters, the team and the club became united."

He added: "While we still have many challenges ahead of us, I am confident we are well equipped to deal with the tasks ahead."

[The Lone Gunman]

A wage bill of £20.6 million for a team that finished 12th in the Championship. Ouch!

[jon1959]

A wage bill of £20.6 million for a team that finished 12th in the Championship. Ouch!

Lambert didn't come cheap!

[The Lone Gunman]

Lambert didn't come cheap!

Just had a quick look at the accounts from 2006/07. The club's wage bill then was £9.6 million. Most of us thought those figures were frightening enough, but these days they are off the scale.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

A wage bill of £20.6 million for a team that finished 12th in the Championship. Ouch!

Looking at this, £20.6m would be about 12th.

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/...-debt-12877242

Obviously that's a year out of date but I'd imagine they'd gone up, which basically tells you how crazy football has got!

[cardiff55]

I think it's the same for a lot of clubs. Like us, if they have a wealthy owner they are OK. If Mr Tan is prepared to keep funding the club and write off interest and debt, and convert debt to equity as long as it's within FFP we are OK. A number of clubs in our division now have foreign owners who seem to be taking the same stance as Vincent Tan.

If we go up, will the situation get better? Massive increase in revenue but also massive increase in costs via wages, transfer fees and agent fees etc (I think we've seen that before). If we don't go up there could be problems, with the end of parachute payments next season our income would drop dramatically.

Tan has financially supported Warnock this season, via some transfer fees, I think we now have 6 players on loan, which means increased wage bill, possible loan fees etc. So it appears to be a concerted push for promotion as we have Feeney, Bryson, Grujic, Wildschut, Traore and Jamie Ward on loan, and paid big money for Madine. Admittedly Tomlin, Camp and a few others have gone out to balance some of the outlay, but we'll see a huge change in personnel next season wherever we are. A lot of the current sued are not good enough for the PL and a lot are on high wages for the Championship. Kennedy, Murphy, Wilson, Gunnarsson, Gounongbe are all out of contract and I expect Tomlin to offloaded if we can, but may face the same problem as getting rid of Pilkington, ie. no one wants him or are prepared to pay the wages. We must have the biggest squad in the last 17 or 18 years since Hammam came in and signed dozens of players!

I'd rather have our owner than that lot down the M4, at least ours invests.

But we'll go up so all will be well!

[Chris Pontprennau Blues]

well said Cardiff55 - you have some optimism in VT

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

A wage bill of £20.6 million for a team that finished 12th in the Championship. Ouch!

What happened to the debt free club that we were promised in May 2010?

[life on mars]

well said Cardiff55 - you have some optimism in VT

👍👍👍👍

[Lawnmower]

End of the day without Tan bankrolling us we are f'cked.

No different to how it's been since he's been here.

Doubt many Championship clubs are making money unless they are doing it by selling players , most are being heavily subsidised.



Maybe we are lucky that we've got an owner who can't leave us in the crap due to the previous damage he did.

[blue matt]

End of the day without Tan bankrolling us we are f'cked.

No different to how it's been since he's been here.

Doubt many Championship clubs are making money unless they are doing it by selling players , most are being heavily subsidised.



Maybe we are lucky that we've got an owner who can't leave us in the crap due to the previous damage he did.

Exactly

It was the same when we had the Riddler in charge, we were fooked back then

At least Vinnie is putting money in

it doesnt make much difference, 30 mill, 70 mill, 100 mill, 150 mill, the club isnt worth that in assets ( players )

once again, you either enjoy the ride or you get off ( and post on here about how you got off and no longer support the club ) it makes no difference

[Hilts]

Winding up orders a thing of the past.
No threat to our future.
We just owe Vincent Tan a lot of money.
As far as i can see club is now well run.
The likelihood is Vincent Tan / or his family are going to be our owners for years. No one is going to buy the club with the debt that high.
Think it would take 5 or 6 years in the top flight to bring that down to interest a buyer.

[cardiff55]

And since I posted above I've heard that Wolves have just announced a £23M loss for the same period. But they did have a profit of £7.5M for the previous year so they were about the same as us last season. the year of profit will help in the three year FFP calculation.

However, I think their published accounts were up to May 2017 and they've bonkers spending wise since then, so I imagine they are pretty close to £39m loss over three seasons by the time next year's account come out. But they'll be up by then and challenging for Champions' League places!!

[Jeff Mansfield]

And since I posted above I've heard that Wolves have just announced a £23M loss for the same period. But they did have a profit of £7.5M for the previous year so they were about the same as us last season. the year of profit will help in the three year FFP calculation.

However, I think their published accounts were up to May 2017 and they've bonkers spending wise since then, so I imagine they are pretty close to £39m loss over three seasons by the time next year's account come out. But they'll be up by then and challenging for Champions' League places!!

I believe the loss for 2015/16 was 8.7m, so with 21.1m for 2016/17 we'd only be allowed about 10m loss for 17/18, assuming the 3-yr period is 15-18, to stay within the 39m limit.

If that's the case then we are in for some belt-tightening even if we go up, bearing in mind that most of the EPL income goes straight out on players' wages and fees etc. Sunderland have managed to end up with huge debts after a good spell in the PL. Just as well we've got a manager who can get results without breaking the bank. Re-signing is the best news we could have hoped for, I'd say.

QPR have been fined 50m and lost their appeal. They should have negotiated instead of appealing. Bournemouth were fined 8m but won't have to pay it until they are relegated. We have to be realistic.

The club have done well, it's such a shame that people won't come in and watch. Gate money is so important in the EFL. Makes you wonder just what we have to do to fill the stadium, though the answer is clear as we saw at the Man City game. Get promoted and they'll come, not so much to support CCFC as to watch PL football.

After April 8th they'll have to pay a lot more for their season tickets that's for sure.

Club is trying hard, pat on the back for all concerned, including of course Mr T! But - please - let's see that debt conversion completed quickly, as promised!

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Winding up orders a thing of the past.
No threat to our future.
We just owe Vincent Tan a lot of money.
As far as i can see club is now well run.
The likelihood is Vincent Tan / or his family are going to be our owners for years. No one is going to buy the club with the debt that high.
Think it would take 5 or 6 years in the top flight to bring that down to interest a buyer.

Why would Tan be our owner for years? If we miss out on promotion he will simply continue losing a million or two a month.

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

Why would Tan be our owner for years? If we miss out on promotion he will simply continue losing a million or two a month.

Possibly more with the loss of parachute payments. This is a marriage of inconvenience, the only ones who seem to derive any joy from the situation are those who get excited over an occasional big money signing. The club are spending about £250,000 a week on wages. They are barely pulling in 19,000 fans. Tan will have a point where he will have to consider cutting his losses. His legacy should be a debt free club (if we listen to his promises). It's more likely to be a club that will struggle with debt for decades more to come.

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

Winding up orders a thing of the past.
No threat to our future.
We just owe Vincent Tan a lot of money.
As far as i can see club is now well run.
The likelihood is Vincent Tan / or his family are going to be our owners for years. No one is going to buy the club with the debt that high.
Think it would take 5 or 6 years in the top flight to bring that down to interest a buyer.

In February 2016, Vincent Tan promised fans during a Q&A session that he would convert £68m of debt to equity immediately.

In 2012, he told fans that the money he was investing as part of the rebrand was in the form of shares.

At other stages he promised to convert debt to equity
1) on promotion
2) on being in the PL
3) on paying off Sam

among other reasons.

At no stage has he actually made good on any of these promises. Now, I know people will argue that it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference whether debt is converted to equity or not. That may be correct (although what happens in the event of Tan passing away?). However, the point surely is that Tan has, at various stages, made promises on converting the debt to equity, and on giving the fans a debt free club within "5 years". That promise was first made in 2012, and it was still "5 years" in 2016.

We have heard odd reasons, such as Malaysian red tape, for the issue. Strange, then, that the Malaysian Government was not an obstacle to Tan investing/loaning £100m to the club in 2012, and many more millions afterwards.

It's all sustainable as long as Tan is alive and interested. But, what happens if that changes?

[Feedback]

In February 2016, Vincent Tan promised fans during a Q&A session that he would convert £68m of debt to equity immediately.

In 2012, he told fans that the money he was investing as part of the rebrand was in the form of shares.

At other stages he promised to convert debt to equity
1) on promotion
2) on being in the PL
3) on paying off Sam

among other reasons.

At no stage has he actually made good on any of these promises. Now, I know people will argue that it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference whether debt is converted to equity or not. That may be correct (although what happens in the event of Tan passing away?). However, the point surely is that Tan has, at various stages, made promises on converting the debt to equity, and on giving the fans a debt free club within "5 years". That promise was first made in 2012, and it was still "5 years" in 2016.

We have heard odd reasons, such as Malaysian red tape, for the issue. Strange, then, that the Malaysian Government was not an obstacle to Tan investing/loaning £100m to the club in 2012, and many more millions afterwards.

It's all sustainable as long as Tan is alive and interested. But, what happens if that changes?

what is the difference between tan holding debt and tan holding equity?

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

what is the difference between tan holding debt and tan holding equity?

I conceded in my post that it may make little difference right now. However, Tan has said many times that he is converting debt to equity, so he must see that there is a difference, else why would he keep bringing it up?

Also, I find it alarming that he proclaimed that £68m of debt was being converted to equity immediately (Feb 2016). But, it appears that didn't happen.... again! The rebrand statement claimed the £100m investment was to be in the form of shares - that didn't happen either. Tan promised a debt free club in 2012. That didn't happen. It's looking more and more apparent that he is struggling to keep his side of the deal.

I guess that he can always pass on the debt to new owners, whereas share prices can go down.

[Since62]

what is the difference between tan holding debt and tan holding equity?

Debt is repayable , equity is not

[Feedback]

Debt is repayable , equity is not

of course it is, that's not what I'm asking. since Tan owns the debt and equity, which is one and the same thing when the company has no tangible assets of note, they can be considered to be the same type of investment (i.e. a bad one)

[dml1954]

In February 2016, Vincent Tan promised fans during a Q&A session that he would convert £68m of debt to equity immediately.

In 2012, he told fans that the money he was investing as part of the rebrand was in the form of shares.

At other stages he promised to convert debt to equity
1) on promotion
2) on being in the PL
3) on paying off Sam

among other reasons.

At no stage has he actually made good on any of these promises. Now, I know people will argue that it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference whether debt is converted to equity or not. That may be correct (although what happens in the event of Tan passing away?). However, the point surely is that Tan has, at various stages, made promises on converting the debt to equity, and on giving the fans a debt free club within "5 years". That promise was first made in 2012, and it was still "5 years" in 2016.

We have heard odd reasons, such as Malaysian red tape, for the issue. Strange, then, that the Malaysian Government was not an obstacle to Tan investing/loaning £100m to the club in 2012, and many more millions afterwards.

It's all sustainable as long as Tan is alive and interested. But, what happens if that changes?

You really are a bitter and twisted person. You totally ignore two of the most important points in your vitriolic attempt to smear Tan and the club you are supposed to support, at every opportunity. Firstly, only a few years ago the debt stood at over £135 million, so it has been reduced by over £20 milion in a short space of time whilst the club has also been mounting promotion challenges. This indicates to me that Tan and the board are now running the club properly and prudently. Secondly the amount of debt to equity conversion available each year is now severely restricted by EFL/FFP rules and regulations, so this has to be carried out over a much longer period of time than was originally planned. In the last few years this debt to equity conversion has taken place at the maximum level allowed and the information available is that this has happened again in the latest accounts.

[BLUEAWAY]

From BBC today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43321872

Cardiff City's debt remains at more than £100m, with much of it owed to owner Vincent Tan.

Accounts for the year ending May 2017 show the club made losses of over £21.3m, including a £4.35m drop in revenue.

This was despite efforts to cut the player wage bill to £20.6m, an 18% reduction on the previous year.

Cardiff City chairman Mehmet Dalman said the club was in "good hands off the pitch".

Accounts recently filed with Companies House state that Tan intends to continue to support the club for the "foreseeable future", with debt to the Malaysian businessman and majority shareholders standing at over £115m at the end of the 2016-17 season.

Tan has also written off some of the money owed to him by the Bluebirds following his takeover in 2010, and has converted some of his debt into equity.

The accounts state Tan waived interest owed to him up to May 2017, but "continued to make further funds available in order to provide the company with additional working capital".

They show further borrowing of over £22.1m, including £11m owed to Tormen Finance Inc, "a company which a director of Cardiff City Football Club Limited has a significance influence over".

In his statement, Dalman insisted the club was in "good hands" off the pitch and that manager Neil Warnock was "a catalyst" for "the beginning of a new era where the supporters, the team and the club became united."

He added: "While we still have many challenges ahead of us, I am confident we are well equipped to deal with the tasks ahead."

I’ll wait for Keith’s analysis

[Enoch Mort]

I’ll wait for Keith’s analysis

I understand from Keith that he has prepared an analysis but is awaiting confirmation from the club that the embargo that he abides by annually can now be put aside.

[the other bob wilson]

I understand from Keith that he has prepared an analysis but is awaiting confirmation from the club that the embargo that he abides by annually can now be put aside.

Keith will be able to clarify things, but I'm surprised and a bit concerned that we lost so much during a season where our spending appeared to be pretty modest, we had a parachute payment to fall back on and our wage bill dropped.

Given the size of the loss, the perception that we have "pushed the boat out" more this season and the dreadful attendances for a team that are automatic promotion contenders so late in the season, you would have thought that we are on for a bigger loss in 17/18 than in 16/17 and, if that is the case, then it would take us over the cumulative £38 million loss figure for three years which constitute a breach of FFP regulations. To avoid having breached the regulations in those circumstances, we would have had to have made a decent profit in 15/16 - I've not got the figures to hand at the moment, but I'm fairly sure that was not the case.