Cardiff City's Latest Accounts: Trust Chair Gives His Analysis.

[dml1954]

Fair point, the payments might have been due, same with the pay rise for the directors - it just doesn't look good amidst everything else.

Why doesn't it look good ? What the directors get in remuneration or what the owner does with his money is absolutely nothing to do with us. Its all in the accounts anyway and not being hidden, so why is the automatic response always that something fishy is going on.

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

Why doesn't it look good ? What the directors get in remuneration or what the owner does with his money is absolutely nothing to do with us. Its all in the accounts anyway and not being hidden, so why is the automatic response always that something fishy is going on.

I didn't say anything fishy was going on. The message from the club is that, understandably, costs have to be cut (not just from here on in; this was mentioned in a meeting early last year) but then the directors' are given more than usual. As has been said, this might be for monies owed/earned but we don't know.

[cardiff55]

Why doesn't it look good ? What the directors get in remuneration or what the owner does with his money is absolutely nothing to do with us. Its all in the accounts anyway and not being hidden, so why is the automatic response always that something fishy is going on.

I totally agree. If owned the club, and subsidised it like Mr Tan, I could do what i wanted. And I could pay directors whatever I liked, and employees too. The players are employees too and there has been little criticism of what we paid in fees and wages for the like of Madine etc. All the players are paid well, maybe with the exception of the youngsters and are the highest drain on finances.

The difference between us and other clubs is that, I believe, Vincent Tan is an honourable man who will not leave the club in the lurch. It's in his interest to keep the club stable so that when he does sell up he gets a lot of his money back. Some clubs have owners who do not put any money in (Swansea?), and have worked their way around FFP rules by selling their grounds to the owner (Derby & Sheff W), which seems a dangerous approach.

Compare our club's owner with another type of owner, let's call him Mr H, who gave the impression of investment , but it was really all loans from himself, which were then sold to another company (if this is right?), who he stated were not him. And then took the club to court, the club he says he loved, and then settled on a deal for the debt. And it was found out to be him all along, and then sues the club (he loves) again for millions. Yet he has not been seen near the club (which he purports to love ) for about a decade or more!!!

Owner one keeps getting vilified whilst owner 2 (on another board) is hero worshipped.

I know which one I'd want at our club.

[The Lone Gunman]

The players are employees too and there has been little criticism of what we paid in fees and wages for the likes of Madine etc.

Are you taking the piss?

[cardiff55]

Are you taking the piss?

Little criticism of Tan. The blame seems to have always been laid at the door of Warnock for Madine and others. But it was the 'transfer committee' who sanctioned the spending. Tan just agreed o what had been proposed, trusting in Dalman, Choo and the manager.

But there again I may taking the piss!

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

I totally agree. If owned the club, and subsidised it like Mr Tan, I could do what i wanted. And I could pay directors whatever I liked, and employees too. The players are employees too and there has been little criticism of what we paid in fees and wages for the like of Madine etc. All the players are paid well, maybe with the exception of the youngsters and are the highest drain on finances.

The difference between us and other clubs is that, I believe, Vincent Tan is an honourable man who will not leave the club in the lurch. It's in his interest to keep the club stable so that when he does sell up he gets a lot of his money back. Some clubs have owners who do not put any money in (Swansea?), and have worked their way around FFP rules by selling their grounds to the owner (Derby & Sheff W), which seems a dangerous approach.

Compare our club's owner with another type of owner, let's call him Mr H, who gave the impression of investment , but it was really all loans from himself, which were then sold to another company (if this is right?), who he stated were not him. And then took the club to court, the club he says he loved, and then settled on a deal for the debt. And it was found out to be him all along, and then sues the club (he loves) again for millions. Yet he has not been seen near the club (which he purports to love ) for about a decade or more!!!

Owner one keeps getting vilified whilst owner 2 (on another board) is hero worshipped.

I know which one I'd want at our club.

So what you're saying is next time I notice what I think is a contradictory element in the message coming from the chairman and the monies received by the directors, I should remember that Vincent Tan is not Sam Hammam and this will appease any discrepancy?

[cardiff55]

So what you're saying is next time I notice what I think is a contradictory element in the message coming from the chairman and the monies received by the directors, I should remember that Vincent Tan is not Sam Hammam and this will appease any discrepancy?

What I was trying to point out is than Tan owns the club and can pretty much do what he wants, and pay as much as he wants to who he wants. He is better than Hammam. Obviously what he does can be questioned but none of us can do anything about it. I think, like Hammam, his tenure will be evaluated fully once he has gone.