Good job.
+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Good job.
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.
That's a fair summary.Originally Posted by Feedback wrote on Thu, 01 January 2015 12:45
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?Originally Posted by ragbone wrote on Thu, 01 January 2015 13:23
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)Originally Posted by the other bob wilson wrote on Thu, 01 January 2015 13:39
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/fudforum/index.php?t=msg&th=400446 &start=0&rid=0Originally Posted by Feedback wrote on Thu, 01 January 2015 13:41
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.
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?
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.Originally Posted by Toronto wrote on Thu, 01 January 2015 15:57
I know all of that. Can you enlighten me on my questions?
There is no commercial reason. Follow the link I posted earlier.Originally Posted by Toronto wrote on Thu, 01 January 2015 16:08
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.Originally Posted by Back in Blue wrote on Thu, 01 January 2015 16:30
If Vincent Tan walks away we are stuffed!Originally Posted by Back in Blue wrote on Thu, 01 January 2015 16:30
Traditional blaming of phone for double post.
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!Originally Posted by lardy wrote on Thu, 01 January 2015 16:33
Perhaps we should then thank Tan for reducing our current debts by getting rid of the over inflated wages for players and manager alike
We need to remember he is a successful business man, not a charity worker, and we are certainly not millionaire businessman.Originally Posted by oxblue wrote on Thu, 01 January 2015 16:55
Judging by your previous posts, I think this is serious, right?Originally Posted by ragbone wrote on Thu, 01 January 2015 16:58
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.Originally Posted by lardy wrote on Thu, 01 January 2015 17:00
Please correct me if it is actually a fair reply.Originally Posted by Tiger Bay Bhoy wrote on Thu, 01 January 2015 17:11
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'?Originally Posted by Feedback wrote on Thu, 01 January 2015 13:41
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.Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie wrote on Thu, 01 January 2015 17:23