View Full Version : The unfulfilled promises of Vincent Tan.
the other bob wilson
01-01-15, 12:13
http://www.ccfctrust.org/ (http://www.ccfctrust.org/)
That's a really good summary by Keith.
It amazes me that some on here insist a deal was agreed between Tan and the fans whilst at the same time entirely relieving Tan of the commitments he made as summarised in this article.
My view is that whether debt or equity, tan controls the company and therefore it's cashflows. This won't change with a debt to equity conversion.
When tan leaves, any debt outstanding will be part of the sales agreement.
My view is that whether debt or equity, tan controls the company and therefore it's cashflows. This won't change with a debt to equity conversion.That's a fair summary.
the other bob wilson
01-01-15, 13:39
My view is that whether debt or equity, tan controls the company and therefore it's cashflows. This won't change with a debt to equity conversion.
When tan leaves, any debt outstanding will be part of the sales agreement. Why is it? For a start it makes no allowance for the FFF regulations and there would be no interest payments to Tan for the club to find - if it makes no odds either way why doesn't Tan stick to his promise?
My view is that whether debt or equity, tan controls the company and therefore it's cashflows. This won't change with a debt to equity conversion.
When tan leaves, any debt outstanding will be part of the sales agreement.
That's a fair summary.Interest payments are likely to be book entries that increase the value of the debt but also reduce any future sales price by the same amount (as they increase accumulated losses / reduce orofits)
My view is that whether debt or equity, tan controls the company and therefore it's cashflows. This won't change with a debt to equity conversion.
When tan leaves, any debt outstanding will be part of the sales agreement.
That's a fair summary.
Why is it? For a start it makes no allowance for the FFF regulations and there would be no interest payments to Tan for the club to find - if it makes no odds either way why doesn't stick to his promise? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/fudforum/index.php?t=msg&th=400446 &start=0&rid=0 (http://www.ccmb.co.uk/fudforum/index.php?t=msg&th=400446&start=0&rid=0)
I'm fairly confident that we wouldn't have been rebranded if it wasn't for the level of debt and going back further we wouldn't have sold x or y. Massive amounts of money being wasted shouldn't be forgotten just because it's another tenner on the pile that we owe.
StraightOuttaCanton
01-01-15, 15:57
Can someone enlighten me please?
Other than because he has said he will convert it, I'm a little confused as to why the hell he would?
I really don't believe there is any way back for him with the customer base, so what's in it for him?
Can someone enlighten me please?I believe that Vincent Tan said he would have scaled back his investment if the rebrand did not proceed. He didn't seek approval for the rebrand from fans and a significant proportion of the money he has invested has been wasted. This is the problem not his failure to convert debt to equity although I understand that this was promised.
StraightOuttaCanton
01-01-15, 16:08
I know all of that. Can you enlighten me on my questions?
I know all of that. Can you enlighten me on my questions?There is no commercial reason. Follow the link I posted earlier.
Back in Blue
01-01-15, 16:30
So if I've understood this correctly, Tan can demand his £150 million (or whatever the true amount is) and potentially liquidate the club?
So if I've understood this correctly, Tan can demand his £150 million (or whatever the true amount is) and potentially liquidate the club? Only a vengeful vindictive c*** would do something like that.
So if I've understood this correctly, Tan can demand his £150 million (or whatever the true amount is) and potentially liquidate the club? If Vincent Tan walks away we are stuffed!
Traditional blaming of phone for double post.
So if I've understood this correctly, Tan can demand his £150 million (or whatever the true amount is) and potentially liquidate the club?
Only a vengeful vindictive c*** would do something like that.It was recently reported that Vincent Tan recently paid off all other creditors and therefore has increased the amount of money he has at risk. Not only may it be considered vengeful and vindictive if he now takes actions that cause the liquidation of the club but you would also have to question his sanity. It is probable that his potential losses continue to rise and so he may at some point decide to cut his losses. He could do this in such a way that the club survives or not!
Perhaps we should then thank Tan for reducing our current debts by getting rid of the over inflated wages for players and manager alike
So if I've understood this correctly, Tan can demand his £150 million (or whatever the true amount is) and potentially liquidate the club?
Only a vengeful vindictive c*** would do something like that.
It was recently reported that Vincent Tan recently paid off all other creditors and therefore has increased the amount of money he has at risk. Not only may it be considered vengeful and vindictive if he now takes actions that cause the liquidation of the club but you would also have to question his sanity. It is probable that his potential losses continue to rise and so he may at some point decide to cut his losses. He could do this in such a way that the club survives or not!We need to remember he is a successful business man, not a charity worker, and we are certainly not millionaire businessman.
Perhaps we should then thank Tan for reducing our current debts by getting rid of the over inflated wages for players and manager alike Judging by your previous posts, I think this is serious, right?
Perhaps we should then thank Tan for reducing our current debts by getting rid of the over inflated wages for players and manager alike
Judging by your previous posts, I think this is serious, right? Outside of this message board, it's a fair reply, but of course it's the vocal minority that rules, with the same twenty or so posters stirring it up.
Perhaps we should then thank Tan for reducing our current debts by getting rid of the over inflated wages for players and manager alike
Judging by your previous posts, I think this is serious, right?
Outside of this message board, it's a fair reply, but of course it's the vocal minority that rules, with the same twenty or so posters stirring it up.Please correct me if it is actually a fair reply.
Taunton Blue Genie
01-01-15, 17:23
My view is that whether debt or equity, tan controls the company and therefore it's cashflows. This won't change with a debt to equity conversion.
When tan leaves, any debt outstanding will be part of the sales agreement.
That's a fair summary.
Why is it? For a start it makes no allowance for the FFF regulations and there would be no interest payments to Tan for the club to find - if it makes no odds either way why doesn't stick to his promise?Do you think there is any alternative to Tan eventually selling, having written off most of his money but recouping a small proportion of it? How much would he be likely to recoup in the circumstances? And what other options are there other than him deciding to put the club out of business and lose all of the 'investment'?
My view is that whether debt or equity, tan controls the company and therefore it's cashflows. This won't change with a debt to equity conversion.
When tan leaves, any debt outstanding will be part of the sales agreement.
That's a fair summary.
Why is it? For a start it makes no allowance for the FFF regulations and there would be no interest payments to Tan for the club to find - if it makes no odds either way why doesn't stick to his promise?
The point being bob is that in either scenario tan controls the cash flows and the sales price when he disposes will be the same.The answer is it depends on what any buyer was willing to pay. They may want a return on their investment, they may just want the prestige of owning a football club.
The number of creditors have reduced to one.
The HMRC obligation is being met.
VT can liquidate Cardiff City, but he would not get anything.
If we were in the top 10 in the Premier League, it's unlikely we would be discussing this matter.
The number of creditors have reduced to one. How about the bit that ragbone mentioned that I was responding to?
The number of creditors have reduced to one. For simple purposes, having no debt is very important for the club, as it means that it doesn't have huge levels of debt.
The number of creditors have reduced to one.
The HMRC obligation is being met.Members voluntary liquidation
As a Cardiff City fans for over 30 years , I am well aware on the clubs financial position.
We as a club have always lived beyond our means since Grogan left.
Whilst I am concerned, I don't lose sleep over it and spend most of my time on an unofficial message board.
As a Cardiff City fans for over 30 years , I am well aware on the clubs financial position. I neither am that concerned, but just concerned enough to write in this thread.
I would be genuinely more concerned with our debt if we still owed the likes of Hammam, Ranson, Guy and the like as opposed to one Creditor, for reasons outlined above.
Under the Splott-light
01-01-15, 17:59
Basically Mr Tan has spunked £150m(?) of his own money really, really badly gambling on some shit managers and in turn some shit players, while doing this he has also shunned some pretty lucrative income streams such as Premier League stadium advertising and what would've potentially been an absolute fortune in the selling of Premier League merchandise, and now he wants us to pay it all back.
Isn't that like me having a great time at the casino and then when i'm all out of cash asking the croupier for it all back as gambling didn't quite work out for me.
I would be genuinely more concerned with our debt if we still owed the likes of Hammam, Ranson, Guy and the like as opposed to one Creditor, for reasons outlined above.If I was concerned, which I'm not, I would be more concerned that there is an astronomically huge amount of debt owed to one creditor at a high rate of interest rather than small debts to other creditors. Luckily I'm not concerned though.
So if I've understood this correctly, Tan can demand his £150 million (or whatever the true amount is) and potentially liquidate the club?
Only a vengeful vindictive c*** would do something like that.
It was recently reported that Vincent Tan recently paid off all other creditors and therefore has increased the amount of money he has at risk. Not only may it be considered vengeful and vindictive if he now takes actions that cause the liquidation of the club but you would also have to question his sanity. It is probable that his potential losses continue to rise and so he may at some point decide to cut his losses. He could do this in such a way that the club survives or not!
We need to remember he is a successful business man, not a charity worker, and we are certainly not millionaire businessman. Just how the divorce pans out will be our concern soon IMO.
Ah the old 7% interest rate. Like most loans. The time to worry is when a helicopter takes the club captain to West Brom for £700k.
Under the Splott-light
01-01-15, 18:08
Ah the old 7% interest rate. Like most loans. The time to worry is when a helicopter takes the club captain to West Brom for £700k.Do you honestly think this current predicament is 'better' than the one that you allude to..?
Ah the old 7% interest rate. Like most loans. The time to worry is when a helicopter takes the club captain to West Brom for £700k.It was Wigan that Kav headed off to in a helicopter.
Ah the old 7% interest rate. Like most loans. The time to worry is when a helicopter takes the club captain to West Brom for £700k.
Why need there be any interest rate - surely a modicum of altruism from such a lover of charity woiuldnt be out of the question ..?The interest charged on the loan was used to dilute everyone else's shareholding when it was converted to equity
Ah the old 7% interest rate. Like most loans. The time to worry is when a helicopter takes the club captain to West Brom for £700k.
Why need there be any interest rate - surely a modicum of altruism from such a lover of charity woiuldnt be out of the question ..?
It was Wigan that Kav headed off to in a helicopter.Tan hasn't converted any debt to equity at all, he has bought his shares from shareholders.
Don't banks give to charity ?
I was referring to Marshall.
splott parker
01-01-15, 18:18
Beats me how Tan (and some of his apologists) think that City fans should show more respect and be grateful, that's akin to a desperate man thanking Wonga.com for putting him deeper in the shit.
Don't banks give to charity ?Whatever you say bhoy.
Lawley Kazoo
01-01-15, 18:19
So if I've understood this correctly, Tan can demand his £150 million (or whatever the true amount is) and potentially liquidate the club?
Only a vengeful vindictive c*** would do something like that.
It was recently reported that Vincent Tan recently paid off all other creditors and therefore has increased the amount of money he has at risk. Not only may it be considered vengeful and vindictive if he now takes actions that cause the liquidation of the club but you would also have to question his sanity. It is probable that his potential losses continue to rise and so he may at some point decide to cut his losses. He could do this in such a way that the club survives or not!
We need to remember he is a successful business man, not a charity worker, and we are certainly not millionaire businessman.
He has no acumen nor business experience within British Football. When put like that the rumours of a consortium don't sound so unlikely.
Ah the old 7% interest rate. Like most loans. The time to worry is when a helicopter takes the club captain to West Brom for £700k.
Why need there be any interest rate - surely a modicum of altruism from such a lover of charity woiuldnt be out of the question ..?
It was Wigan that Kav headed off to in a helicopter.
The interest charged on the loan was used to dilute everyone else's shareholding when it was converted to equityI'm pretty sure there was an agreement to convert the interest on the loan to equity
Ah the old 7% interest rate. Like most loans. The time to worry is when a helicopter takes the club captain to West Brom for £700k.
Why need there be any interest rate - surely a modicum of altruism from such a lover of charity woiuldnt be out of the question ..?
It was Wigan that Kav headed off to in a helicopter.
The interest charged on the loan was used to dilute everyone else's shareholding when it was converted to equity
Tan hasn't converted any debt to equity at all, he has bought his shares from shareholders.From Keith - "As far back as a meeting of shareholders held in July 2011 there was a resolution passed from Mr Tan and his fellow Malaysian investors to convert £5.1m of loans into shares. It never happened."
I'm pretty sure there was an agreement to convert accrued interest to shares, but whether it actually happened is Moot.
I'm pretty sure there was an agreement to convert accrued interest to shares, but whether it actually happened is Moot.As long as things get agreed then it doesn't matter if they never happen.
the other bob wilson
02-01-15, 05:42
Basically Mr Tan has spunked £150m(?) of his own money really, really badly gambling on some shit managers and in turn some shit players, while doing this he has also shunned some pretty lucrative income streams such as Premier League stadium advertising and what would've potentially been an absolute fortune in the selling of Premier League merchandise, and now he wants us to pay it all back.Very good analogy - don't forget that we've never had a stadium naming rights deal either.
the other bob wilson
02-01-15, 05:56
Ah the old 7% interest rate. Like most loans. The time to worry is when a helicopter takes the club captain to West Brom for £700k.
Why need there be any interest rate - surely a modicum of altruism from such a lover of charity woiuldnt be out of the question ..?Perhaps these accountant types (interesting that the accountant who has tended to be proved right most often on our finances thinks differently) can explain how our current potential situation differs to ten years ago when about 80% of our debt was owed to one individual/company and we ended up with Black Friday. As I keep on saying, while our situation remains as it is, Tan is nothing more than a better connected and richer Hammam - the only difference is that the club's level of debt is far more dangerous than it was before if Tan wanted to get vindictive.
Bob
What exactly is there to be proved right on our finances? From what I've read, Keith has only ever given his opinion on the numbers and what they likely mean. Interpreting a set of accounts is not rocket science to the trained eye. Football accounts are hardly complicated to understand.
Whether it's debt or equity Vincent Tan remains in control either way and the sales price (should there be one) would be based on future earning potential.
Two other points:
1. I don't think anyone is really saying anything differently - the same thing is being said just in a different way.
2. If all the debt was converted to equity Vincent Tan would find it easier to wind up the club as a a CVL is more onerous than a MVL
Two other points:In a MVL case , the liquidator could also sell on the club`s golden share enabling it to carry on trading as a football club in its current position in the league.
It's easier because there is less work involved (as you allude to yourself). Thats what i was getting at.
In an MVL the IP will be bound to act in the shareholders interests. It may well be that VT doesn't want to sell the club's golden share. It's not a foregone conclusion
It's easier because there is less work involved (as you allude to yourself). Thats what i was getting at.It would not be down to VT whether he wants to sell the golden share or not - the IP decides. VT is only entitled to the sale proceeds not to decide if it is sold or to whom.
It's easier because there is less work involved (as you allude to yourself). Thats what i was getting at.
In an MVL the IP will be bound to act in the shareholders interests. It may well be that VT doesn't want to sell the club's golden share. It's not a foregone conclusion I'm aware of all that, what I'm alluding to is that the IP is appointed in a MVL by the shareholders and whilst the IP it to act independently, the reality is the IP looks at the shareholders aims when formulating their disposal strategy.
WJ99mobile
16-07-19, 17:02
I think he’s redeemed himself somewhat
Enoch Mort
16-07-19, 17:34
This article was written by the Trust back in early 2015. It wasn’t until Feb 2016 did VT pledge himself to an immediate £60m+ conversion of debt to equity plus a further £8m per year over the next 5 years with the aim of making us a debt free club by 2021. He has kept to his word, although I don’t think the £60m was as immediate as he promised and he has also made debt write offs in the meantime. Of course, the overall indebtedness of the club will have changed since then so it will be interesting to see what the accumulative debt conversions and write offs have been to date and how far away we are from being debt free compared to what it would have been based on 2016 indebtedness. No doubt Keith will have a view.
RonnieBird
16-07-19, 19:04
As pointed out above these are old figures so I've no idea why we're worrying about them .
What's more, and despite the fact that I was angry about some previous events such as red shirts and other stuff around that period, Vincent Tan has sunk millions into this club and is by far the best " chairman" ( owner if you like), we've ever had .
He's taken us into the premiership twice in a few years and looks poised to do it a third time, built the club sensibly and solidly and it's in a far far better financial shape than most comparable clubs.
I think it's both insulting and ridiculous for people to be complaining about the man at this stage. He's the primary reason why we've come this far.
As pointed out above these are old figures so I've no idea why we're worrying about them .
What's more, and despite the fact that I was angry about some previous events such as red shirts and other stuff around that period, Vincent Tan has sunk millions into this club and is by far the best " chairman" ( owner if you like), we've ever had .
He's taken us into the premiership twice in a few years and looks poised to do it a third time, built the club sensibly and solidly and it's in a far far better financial shape than most comparable clubs.
I think it's both insulting and ridiculous for people to be complaining about the man at this stage. He's the primary reason why we've come this far.
Spot on :thumbup:
RonnieBird
16-07-19, 19:19
Thank you - I don't think anyone has ever agreed with me on this message board before !
Thank you - I don't think anyone has ever agreed with me on this message board before !
What you posted was correct :thumbup:
Thank you - I don't think anyone has ever agreed with me on this message board before !
You need to be careful about these sensible posts, or it might become a habit!! we can't be 'aving that, lad!!! :hehe:
You need to be careful about these sensible posts, or it might become a habit!! we can't be 'aving that, lad!!! :hehe:
We do have one or two :biggrin:
Auntie Andy
16-07-19, 19:41
As pointed out above these are old figures so I've no idea why we're worrying about them .
What's more, and despite the fact that I was angry about some previous events such as red shirts and other stuff around that period, Vincent Tan has sunk millions into this club and is by far the best " chairman" ( owner if you like), we've ever had .
He's taken us into the premiership twice in a few years and looks poised to do it a third time, built the club sensibly and solidly and it's in a far far better financial shape than most comparable clubs.
I think it's both insulting and ridiculous for people to be complaining about the man at this stage. He's the primary reason why we've come this far.
I prey certain posters don’t read this otherwise I estimate a 40 pager :facepalm:
It was all a bit embarrassing a few years ago, especially with our 'friends' down West being so perfect. Well, just look at us now. I'm not sure whether to pit 'them' or just laugh at them like they did to us?
I prey certain posters don’t read this otherwise I estimate a 40 pager :facepalm:
He is the reason I'm no longer a ST holder, acknowledge he's reversed on red etc. and taken the club to some great times, given me some great moments, Wembley with my children something my father never had a chance to do but with the red fiasco he broke my ST run, I did intend to go to a few games last year to try and get back into the routine but just didn't get round to actually making the effort to do it, things happen in cycles and I think it just caught me when the cycle was going to be broken anyway, it just accelerated it, I'm sure at some point something will click and will trigger the want to start going again, still support/want the team to do well albeit from the armchair, I wouldn't be surprised if the team went straight back to the PL (I hope they do).
RonnieBird
16-07-19, 21:02
He is the reason I'm no longer a ST holder, acknowledge he's reversed on red etc. and taken the club to some great times, given me some great moments, Wembley with my children something my father never had a chance to do but with the red fiasco he broke my ST run, I did intend to go to a few games last year to try and get back into the routine but just didn't get round to actually making the effort to do it, things happen in cycles and I think it just caught me when the cycle was going to be broken anyway, it just accelerated it, I'm sure at some point something will click and will trigger the want to start going again, still support/want the team to do well albeit from the armchair, I wouldn't be surprised if the team went straight back to the PL (I hope they do).
No one was more angry than me during the red shirt period and the stuff which followed, including the Olly nonsense.
I don't like to hark back to all that actually, but if you press me I couldn't deny that Mr Tan made some serious mistakes back then.
Here's the thing though, we've all made mistakes and some of us learn from it. He has, which is the sign of a successful and clever man.
He could have let his ego rule him and persisted with his original path, or walked away from the club. He didn't though - he looked at it again and saw the problems then fixed them.
I don't mean to repeat what I said in that last post, but I'm saying all this because I don't want you to feel marginalised from the club or all the Cardiff City family at this point over past events.
At the end of the day we're all Cardiff City together when it comes to it - we will indeed go straight back into the premiership together , and we need you there when that happens !!!
the other bob wilson
17-07-19, 04:53
I think it was reasonable to become more cynical about the promised large debt to equity conversion the longer it went on without it being fulfilled, but Vincent Tan came through in the end and I have, accordingly, changed my, largely negative prior opinion of the man accordingly - I'd also say that there is a good chance that the reason why the conversion didn't happen at the originally promised date is that Football League regulations prevented it from happening.
Ithought it was something to do with the Malaysian financial regulations, movement of large amounts of equity or something.
But hey-ho, he did it and that's the important thing.
Croesy Blue
17-07-19, 08:40
I think since he changed the red shirts back to blue he's been all you could want in a chairman.
It would be great if the club had a slightly more long term plan, but since hiring Warnock supporting Cardiff has been enjoyable again.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.