+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 80

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

  1. #51

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life View Post
    Standard tactic for trolls like BiS - whine and ignore from main account, then be able to see ignored posters comments through another account.

    Bit sad really.
    He sounds similar to that odd loner that had spiders Although it could be Chepstow or even both

  2. #52

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

    Quote Originally Posted by stan butler View Post
    I'm sure Badly ironed Shirt has a few accounts on here the freak
    In that case, tell me which ones. I posted as Kris for a while because I was banned for 12 months shortly after a "Tan Out" post.

  3. #53

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Croesy Blue View Post
    Nothing says you’re going off the deep end like 7 consecutive posts in a thread
    Stolen any good usernames recently?

  4. #54

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

    Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
    Seems like I'm on your ignore list then (maybe because I didn't bother replying to your long post on debt to equity in what I'm pretty sure was a transfer budget thread).

    Anyway, i agree with you about Vincent Tan being probably unaware of the FFP regulations when he made those comments about debt to equity conversion - that doesn't reflect well on him or the club if true, but isn't the real point here that our owner appears to be going ahead with the conversion as quickly as the regulations will allow him to? I've been a frequent critic of his and will probably be again, but the impression I get from this thread is that you started it not expecting to get an answer to the question you asked in the OP, then, having got one that didn't really suit your agenda, you've had to accept what is very much a consolation prize.
    No, a consolation prize would be something like writing a match report on a game that you heard on radio. Me being corrected by actual evidence is not really a consolation prize. Mind you, let's be honest, FFP was not the ORIGINAL reason for the lack of debt to equity conversion. Other reasons included Langstone, Getting to the Premier League, Staying in the Premier League and a few others. It would be disingenuous to just pin the debt to the FFP rules when Tan has history of moving the goal posts on this very topic.

    Sorry Croesy - that's my third consecutive post in this thread. Call the men in white coats.

  5. #55

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

    Im cringing for you pal, what a complete twat.

  6. #56

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Croesy Blue View Post
    Im cringing for you pal, what a complete twat.
    Being called a twat by someone like you is an absolute positive as far as I am concerned.

  7. #57

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

    I suppose when you’re sat on your own in your bedsit posting on ccmb all weekend any interaction with another person is an absolute positive.

  8. #58

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

    The club is in the best position it has ever been why do you keep on banging about the same thing day in day out

  9. #59

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamieccfc View Post
    The club is in the best position it has ever been why do you keep on banging about the same thing day in day out
    He is a strange one for sure

  10. #60

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Croesy Blue View Post
    I suppose when you’re sat on your own in your bedsit posting on ccmb all weekend any interaction with another person is an absolute positive.

  11. #61

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamieccfc View Post
    The club is in the best position it has ever been why do you keep on banging about the same thing day in day out
    He’s like CCMBs very own Roathy. Surely Mike only keeps this negative , bitter, pathetic excuse for a man around for the hits?

  12. #62

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt View Post
    No, a consolation prize would be something like writing a match report on a game that you heard on radio. Me being corrected by actual evidence is not really a consolation prize. Mind you, let's be honest, FFP was not the ORIGINAL reason for the lack of debt to equity conversion. Other reasons included Langstone, Getting to the Premier League, Staying in the Premier League and a few others. It would be disingenuous to just pin the debt to the FFP rules when Tan has history of moving the goal posts on this very topic.

    Sorry Croesy - that's my third consecutive post in this thread. Call the men in white coats.
    oo, that first sentence really cuts me to the quick . The only "match reports" as I define the term you'll read on the blog are occasional ones concerning Under 21 or Under 18 matches - whether I watched the game in the flesh or not, 95 % or more of what I write are reflections on matters arising from the game , rather than a blow by blow account, anyone wanting to read something like that, should avoid my blog.

    So, you're telling me that you didn't start this thread with the purpose of having another go at Vincent Tan about debt to equity after the other members of this Board couldn't come up with the answer to your original question? In the event, Penarth Blues found something which explains things quickly and succinctly. You say there were other reasons for the delay originally, but were there really? I'm beginning to think that it's always been just the one reason (the reason discovered by Penarth Blues) and the club were reluctant to divulge it because they didn't think it reflected well on them.

    As I mentioned before though, whatever the rights and wrongs of what I say the simple fact is that Vincent Tan wentg ahead with the conversion as quickly as the Championship FFP regulations allowed him to - perhaps the ones for the Premier League will mean that we will see something different in the accounts for 18/19 when they are published?

  13. #63

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

    Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
    oo, that first sentence really cuts me to the quick . The only "match reports" as I define the term you'll read on the blog are occasional ones concerning Under 21 or Under 18 matches - whether I watched the game in the flesh or not, 95 % or more of what I write are reflections on matters arising from the game , rather than a blow by blow account, anyone wanting to read something like that, should avoid my blog.

    So, you're telling me that you didn't start this thread with the purpose of having another go at Vincent Tan about debt to equity after the other members of this Board couldn't come up with the answer to your original question? In the event, Penarth Blues found something which explains things quickly and succinctly. You say there were other reasons for the delay originally, but were there really? I'm beginning to think that it's always been just the one reason (the reason discovered by Penarth Blues) and the club were reluctant to divulge it because they didn't think it reflected well on them.

    As I mentioned before though, whatever the rights and wrongs of what I say the simple fact is that Vincent Tan wentg ahead with the conversion as quickly as the Championship FFP regulations allowed him to - perhaps the ones for the Premier League will mean that we will see something different in the accounts for 18/19 when they are published?
    In fairness the club have cited other reasons for the delays before, but why and what right have we got to question them when he’s written off over £30m already ?

    As I said before, he was still subsidising the club to the tune of over £1m a month on average last season and the seasons before.

    He’s the ONLY person to ever invest anything like this sort of money in the club and to nit pick over this issue as Badly Ironed Shirt is doing really is pathetic

    To knock you for your extremely popular match reports is just desperate and unnecessary.

  14. #64

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

    Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
    So, you're telling me that you didn't start this thread with the purpose of having another go at Vincent Tan about debt to equity after the other members of this Board couldn't come up with the answer to your original question? In the event, Penarth Blues found something which explains things quickly and succinctly. You say there were other reasons for the delay originally, but were there really? I'm beginning to think that it's always been just the one reason (the reason discovered by Penarth Blues) and the club were reluctant to divulge it because they didn't think it reflected well on them.

    As I mentioned before though, whatever the rights and wrongs of what I say the simple fact is that Vincent Tan wentg ahead with the conversion as quickly as the Championship FFP regulations allowed him to - perhaps the ones for the Premier League will mean that we will see something different in the accounts for 18/19 when they are published?
    Yes, I am telling you exactly that. Whenever I have mentioned debt to equity, I have heard a number of different reasons why I am wrong. I started this thread to see whether there was evidence that backed up some of these claims, and because every time I mentioned it in other threads, people told me to start my own thread! When I do that, people then claim I have an agenda.

    That there is evidence (of FFP rules) that Tan was unable to convert debt to equity in recent years because of that rule. It was not, as some claim, due to Malaysian regulation laws - although I wonder where those people got that information from. You are starting to fall into the category of playing the man and not the ball - although in fairness you often take both (that is not a criticism by the way).

    As for there being other reasons, of course there were. Surely you remember Tan saying that Hammam was the main stumbling block to making Cardiff City debt free. When Hammam was no longer a stumbling block, it was promotion to the PL that would see the club debt free. Have we always been at war with Eurasia? The current FFP started for the 2016/17 season. Were the FFP rules also preventing debt to equity in 2014-2016?

    As for 18/19 - my understanding from some of the above posts is that Tan will not be able to convert debt to equity in Cardiff's first season in the PL.

  15. #65

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lawnmower View Post
    In fairness the club have cited other reasons for the delays before, but why and what right have we got to question them when he’s written off over £30m already ?
    Can you remember the last time fans didn't question an owner because he was bringing success on the pitch? Tan cannot be exempt from scrutiny. Also, Tan cannot only face scrutiny when the team are performing poorly. Fans' opinions on Tan will probably sour if the team struggles next season with minimal spending. That is not fair on Tan - and it is important that fans look further than Tan when discussing club finances. How often has the club had new owners who have, essentially, been hamstrung by the mess left by previous owners. Of course, fans can't change or affect anything - but fans need to be consistent.

    Clemo - no problems in 87-88 with the team going up.
    88-89, small crowds, selling players to keep the club alive - Clemo is a shit. In effect, Clemo was skint.

    Wright - Best thing since sliced bread when bringing in Dale, Ratcliffe, Millar, Ramsey.
    Wright - Complete bastard when he stopped spending money (as he said he would)

    Hammam - "We want Sam Hammam walking round the pitch" - "Debt shows strength" - even you swallowed that one Lawnmower - I remember you knocking my negativity when I questioned how the club could afford Thorne.
    Then, Black Friday happened - Hammam is a crook!

    Sorry but "This guy is coming in and spending his own cash - we should take it without a second thought" sounds more like prostitution or a sugar-daddy type relationship. I have a bit more self-respect than to be duped like that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning an owner's intentions, and querying why promises have not been kept.

  16. #66

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

    Clemo - pre internet days ergo such Sherlock like sleuthing such as that you provide would be more difficult.

    Who called Wright a "complete bastard" as you assert?

    You skipped a few other owners, can understand why.

    Hammam - you conveniently ignore many were critical of Hammam from day one - he did have some "high profile" "fans" performing cheap PR for him.

    Prostitution? Good grief. You really can't even construct a half way decent analogy can you?

  17. #67

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt View Post
    Can you remember the last time fans didn't question an owner because he was bringing success on the pitch? Tan cannot be exempt from scrutiny. Also, Tan cannot only face scrutiny when the team are performing poorly. Fans' opinions on Tan will probably sour if the team struggles next season with minimal spending. That is not fair on Tan - and it is important that fans look further than Tan when discussing club finances. How often has the club had new owners who have, essentially, been hamstrung by the mess left by previous owners. Of course, fans can't change or affect anything - but fans need to be consistent.

    Clemo - no problems in 87-88 with the team going up.
    88-89, small crowds, selling players to keep the club alive - Clemo is a shit. In effect, Clemo was skint.

    Wright - Best thing since sliced bread when bringing in Dale, Ratcliffe, Millar, Ramsey.
    Wright - Complete bastard when he stopped spending money (as he said he would)

    Hammam - "We want Sam Hammam walking round the pitch" - "Debt shows strength" - even you swallowed that one Lawnmower - I remember you knocking my negativity when I questioned how the club could afford Thorne.
    Then, Black Friday happened - Hammam is a crook!

    Sorry but "This guy is coming in and spending his own cash - we should take it without a second thought" sounds more like prostitution or a sugar-daddy type relationship. I have a bit more self-respect than to be duped like that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning an owner's intentions, and querying why promises have not been kept.
    What's a sugar daddy / prostitute relationship like?

    Could you let me know, from your experiences.

  18. #68

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt View Post
    Can you remember the last time fans didn't question an owner because he was bringing success on the pitch? Tan cannot be exempt from scrutiny. Also, Tan cannot only face scrutiny when the team are performing poorly. Fans' opinions on Tan will probably sour if the team struggles next season with minimal spending. That is not fair on Tan - and it is important that fans look further than Tan when discussing club finances. How often has the club had new owners who have, essentially, been hamstrung by the mess left by previous owners. Of course, fans can't change or affect anything - but fans need to be consistent.

    Clemo - no problems in 87-88 with the team going up.
    88-89, small crowds, selling players to keep the club alive - Clemo is a shit. In effect, Clemo was skint.

    Wright - Best thing since sliced bread when bringing in Dale, Ratcliffe, Millar, Ramsey.
    Wright - Complete bastard when he stopped spending money (as he said he would)

    Hammam - "We want Sam Hammam walking round the pitch" - "Debt shows strength" - even you swallowed that one Lawnmower - I remember you knocking my negativity when I questioned how the club could afford Thorne.
    Then, Black Friday happened - Hammam is a crook!

    Sorry but "This guy is coming in and spending his own cash - we should take it without a second thought" sounds more like prostitution or a sugar-daddy type relationship. I have a bit more self-respect than to be duped like that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning an owner's intentions, and querying why promises have not been kept.
    Thing is it seems to me and many others that you aren’t asking questions but just looking for angles to niggle at the guy and anyone else who is prepared to forgive him for the rebrand.

    Anyway .. I would have though I was on ignore !

    As for Hammam, well, like many of the others he was a liar. I can’t particularly remember you asking questions of him.
    I can remember TLG doing it, then becoming less critical when Sam took him into the Inner Circle and started feeding him the bollox.

    Since 62 was as well, as it was Sams bare face lies meant the truth didn’t come out until it was too late.

    IMHO it was too late we’ll before that as without a Trust and local businesses backing Bodley Sam was probably our best option even if we knew he was going to screw us over.

    At first I was was prepared to give Sam the benefit of the doubt, which I still believe it the right way to do it.. anyone prepared to invest in the club should be given a chance, otherwise we cut down what are already limited options... and if I hadn’t it would have made bugger all difference.

    That line about ‘prostitution ‘. Get a grip.
    ‘Self respect ‘ -just look at your post history for the past few years 😂

  19. #69

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt View Post
    Yes, I am telling you exactly that. Whenever I have mentioned debt to equity, I have heard a number of different reasons why I am wrong. I started this thread to see whether there was evidence that backed up some of these claims, and because every time I mentioned it in other threads, people told me to start my own thread! When I do that, people then claim I have an agenda.

    That there is evidence (of FFP rules) that Tan was unable to convert debt to equity in recent years because of that rule. It was not, as some claim, due to Malaysian regulation laws - although I wonder where those people got that information from. You are starting to fall into the category of playing the man and not the ball - although in fairness you often take both (that is not a criticism by the way).

    As for there being other reasons, of course there were. Surely you remember Tan saying that Hammam was the main stumbling block to making Cardiff City debt free. When Hammam was no longer a stumbling block, it was promotion to the PL that would see the club debt free. Have we always been at war with Eurasia? The current FFP started for the 2016/17 season. Were the FFP rules also preventing debt to equity in 2014-2016?

    As for 18/19 - my understanding from some of the above posts is that Tan will not be able to convert debt to equity in Cardiff's first season in the PL.
    Again, I'll ask you (if I'm not on ignore ). You claim not to be a Cardiff City fan, so what the feck does it matter to you? Why do you continually feel so bitter if you couldn't care less about the club?

  20. #70

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lawnmower View Post
    Thing is it seems to me and many others that you aren’t asking questions but just looking for angles to niggle at the guy and anyone else who is prepared to forgive him for the rebrand.
    As I have said numerous times, I can't really change people's opinions on me, and as I don't particularly care about anyone's opinion (especially anonymous people) I'm not really bothered how you interpret it. I could say you're wrong, you wouldn't believe me - so best leave it there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lawnmower View Post
    Anyway .. I would have though I was on ignore !
    As far as I am aware, you've never been particularly derogatory and give as good as you get. You also tend to add to a debate, although it's through rose coloured glasses in the most part.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lawnmower View Post
    As for Hammam, well, like many of the others he was a liar. I can’t particularly remember you asking questions of him.
    On the old forum, I used to leave my e-mail address on there. I was once invited to meet Sam Hammam by Jason Turner because of some of my comments. The funny thing was, my sister got quite friendly with Jason and I knew about the wage thing a week before Black Friday. In fact, there was a lot of discontent in the club over Whalleygate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lawnmower View Post
    I can remember TLG doing it, then becoming less critical when Sam took him into the Inner Circle and started feeding him the bollox.

    Since 62 was as well, as it was Sams bare face lies meant the truth didn’t come out until it was too late.
    I remember TLG falling for the "debt is a sign of strength" crap that Hammam spouted when the debt was a mere £18m. I had met Hammam a couple of times, never really liked the fella - an absolute egotist. A bit like the current owner (in my opinion) - but the current bloke has deeper pockets and more intelligence. A potentially potent mix.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lawnmower View Post
    IMHO it was too late we’ll before that as without a Trust and local businesses backing Bodley Sam was probably our best option even if we knew he was going to screw us over.

    At first I was was prepared to give Sam the benefit of the doubt, which I still believe it the right way to do it.. anyone prepared to invest in the club should be given a chance, otherwise we cut down what are already limited options... and if I hadn’t it would have made bugger all difference.
    Of course, give the new owners the benefit of the doubt by all means. But, Cardiff fans have collectively been taken in by people like Rick Wright (although he spelled out his exact commitments at the start), and Sam Hammam. I would have thought that Cardiff fans would have collectively become more cautious with experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lawnmower View Post
    That line about ‘prostitution ‘. Get a grip.
    ‘Self respect ‘ -just look at your post history for the past few years ��
    Don't take me so seriously - I don't.

  21. #71

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

    BIS. I don’t have a problem with you but am baffled why you are so deeply involved in this thread if you don’t support Cardiff City.

  22. #72

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt View Post
    As I have said numerous times, I can't really change people's opinions on me, and as I don't particularly care about anyone's opinion (especially anonymous people) I'm not really bothered how you interpret it. I could say you're wrong, you wouldn't believe me - so best leave it there.



    As far as I am aware, you've never been particularly derogatory and give as good as you get. You also tend to add to a debate, although it's through rose coloured glasses in the most part.




    On the old forum, I used to leave my e-mail address on there. I was once invited to meet Sam Hammam by Jason Turner because of some of my comments. The funny thing was, my sister got quite friendly with Jason and I knew about the wage thing a week before Black Friday. In fact, there was a lot of discontent in the club over Whalleygate.



    I remember TLG falling for the "debt is a sign of strength" crap that Hammam spouted when the debt was a mere £18m. I had met Hammam a couple of times, never really liked the fella - an absolute egotist. A bit like the current owner (in my opinion) - but the current bloke has deeper pockets and more intelligence. A potentially potent mix.



    Of course, give the new owners the benefit of the doubt by all means. But, Cardiff fans have collectively been taken in by people like Rick Wright (although he spelled out his exact commitments at the start), and Sam Hammam. I would have thought that Cardiff fans would have collectively become more cautious with experience.



    Don't take me so seriously - I don't.
    TBH it wouldn’t really matter anyway. As Inpointed out before, the size of the figures in football now mean there’s next to nothing we can do.

    If Tan pulled the plug then we are fecked no matter what anyone has said.

    So no matter what we do it makes absolutely no difference.

    When we were in the crap after Sam dropped us in it I bought £10k if shares ( Im one of the few who didn’t sell up to Tan- not that it makes any difference)... several others did the same and that helped keep us alive.
    I was also one of the original handful who set the Trust up ( I ended up shelling out the money needed when another fan who liked self publicity pulled his promise of help when he found out it didn’t guarantee he controlled it)...

    Nowadays, although I’m very pleased we have the Trust ( but wish many more fans had joined), I can see very little we could do if Tan decided he’d had enough and was going to asset strip and wind the club up.

    So best approach is to keep him onside 🙂

  23. #73

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lawnmower View Post
    TBH it wouldn’t really matter anyway. As Inpointed out before, the size of the figures in football now mean there’s next to nothing we can do.

    If Tan pulled the plug then we are fecked no matter what anyone has said.

    So no matter what we do it makes absolutely no difference.

    When we were in the crap after Sam dropped us in it I bought £10k if shares ( Im one of the few who didn’t sell up to Tan- not that it makes any difference)... several others did the same and that helped keep us alive.
    I was also one of the original handful who set the Trust up ( I ended up shelling out the money needed when another fan who liked self publicity pulled his promise of help when he found out it didn’t guarantee he controlled it)...

    Nowadays, although I’m very pleased we have the Trust ( but wish many more fans had joined), I can see very little we could do if Tan decided he’d had enough and was going to asset strip and wind the club up.

    So best approach is to keep him onside ��
    I actually stayed in the Trust for a few years after I stopped going. Like you, I was shocked that only a few hundred could see the point. Although, to be fair, the Trust is no longer viable. The way I saw it (back then and in simplistic terms), if Cardiff filed for CVA, then fans would have to find 10p in a £ to take over the club. I saw that as being a possibility - now it isn't. Of course, as fans we can't do anything. Could we have stopped Hammam's ego trip? Did we want to? Same with Tan. But, just because fans have no voice, it doesn't stop them from asking awkward questions. Often, I think people write on here with a possible misconception that Vincent Tan is reading some messages and hoping to charm his wallet open. I write on here because I supported that club through all the divisions (except Premier League), and I sincerely hope there is a football club left after Tan departs. Nothing I say makes the blindest bit of difference, I am under no illusions.

  24. #74

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

    He was a supporter and in fact initially supported the change to red.

    You could read his posts criticising those who didn't like the idea for some years after on the old board under his previous Loya Jirga id.

    Then he had a Damascene conversion and poured scorn on those who either supported the change to red or were ambivalent towards it. Ended with him withdrawing his support from the club.

    He is not a Swansea supporter though (as he has been accused of)and does put up some sensible posts at times.

    At other times he can be slightly annoying.

    Well, more than slightly on occasion!!

    That's probably me on ignore now!!

  25. #75

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt View Post
    Yes, I am telling you exactly that. Whenever I have mentioned debt to equity, I have heard a number of different reasons why I am wrong. I started this thread to see whether there was evidence that backed up some of these claims, and because every time I mentioned it in other threads, people told me to start my own thread! When I do that, people then claim I have an agenda.

    That there is evidence (of FFP rules) that Tan was unable to convert debt to equity in recent years because of that rule. It was not, as some claim, due to Malaysian regulation laws - although I wonder where those people got that information from. You are starting to fall into the category of playing the man and not the ball - although in fairness you often take both (that is not a criticism by the way).

    As for there being other reasons, of course there were. Surely you remember Tan saying that Hammam was the main stumbling block to making Cardiff City debt free. When Hammam was no longer a stumbling block, it was promotion to the PL that would see the club debt free. Have we always been at war with Eurasia? The current FFP started for the 2016/17 season. Were the FFP rules also preventing debt to equity in 2014-2016?

    As for 18/19 - my understanding from some of the above posts is that Tan will not be able to convert debt to equity in Cardiff's first season in the PL.
    Well you do have an agenda don't you. I know what a big City fan you were because of what you did regarding the book Richard Holt and I wrote five years ago - that's why I find it sad that it has come to this with you.

    While the current version of FFP came in for 16/17, the table at 5.3 in the link Penarth Blues provided shows figures from 11/12 right through to 15/16, so that must tell us surely that they were what was in place during those years? Therefore, the highest Vincent Tan could have converted in any season since 11/12 was £8 million (the amount that has been knocked off the club's debt to him through this method over the past two or three seasons).

    Based on the link I posted from 2010 about Man City's owner making a huge debt to equity conversion in 2010 while he still could because he knew the time for such things was running out, Vincent Tan may have had a year or so after he became more heavily involved with City in 2010 where he could have made a full and complete debt to equity conversion, but I'm not sure it could have happened at any time after that.

    This would mean that a complete debt to equity conversion would not have been possible in May 2012 when all of the controversy about the rebrand broke and yet I was at a meeting with club officials where a group of City fans were told that such a conversion was "imminent".

    Maybe Keith could confirm whether I'm right about debt to equity restrictions being in place from 11/12 onwards or whether I'm adding two and two and getting five?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •