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

[Rjk]

It’s interesting that directors’ remuneration rose 34% at a time when the other salary costs were reducing by a similar percentage.

yes and the two companies we paid a lot of money to that dalman has interests in - what's that about?

we seem to have done some decent work in trimming the wage bill already, with more to follow.
all things considered we seem fairly middle of the road championship club.

however, considering that next season will be the first since 2013/14 that we won't be recieving any additional money from the premier League we should probably be in a more enviable position.
that's 8 seasons of an unfair advantage over other clubs with which to build up the club, and we've basically wasted it all.

the club are now starting to make the right sounds about bringing through youth and identifying players who could be sold at a profit, but it's going to be a lot more difficult without the premier League money. better late than never I suppose.
the main problem for me remains that we seem to have been far too reliant on the manager for transfer policy etc

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

yes and the two companies we paid a lot of money to that dalman has interests in - what's that about?

Didn't he hold a meeting with fans last year when he said we need to tighten our belts?

[Rjk]

Didn't he hold a meeting with fans last year when he said we need to tighten our belts?

Well in fairness we do need to, to the tune of £30 million +
difficult to speculate too much on the payments without knowing what they're for

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

Well in fairness we do need to, to the tune of £30 million +
difficult to speculate too much on the payments without knowing what they're for

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.

[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?

[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?