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

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

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.

[the other bob wilson]

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?

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

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.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

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?

[the other bob wilson]

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?

[Nobody's Rep]

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?

I have watched this debate from the sidelines and I am amazed it has got to 3 pages.

For me it is simple - he said he would but he didn't and the only people who will know why is Tan and those close to him. Dependant on which camp you sit that either makes him a liar or there is a reason why he didn't do it.

I suggest the OP write direct to him or try Mehmet Dalman - I have emailed him twice in the last couple of years and have had a rapid response on both occasions.

For me I just think (and that's all I can say as i don't know it to be fact) we are in a better place off the pitch than I can remember in 40 years of supporting the club