' Cardiff City Owners '

With all due respect, he hasn't lied. He just hasn't fulfilled all his promises yet, that doesn't make him a liar by any stretch of the imagination. Its a phrase that is being bandied about and it shouldn't be

Nat,he has lied...
Just as Peter did before him....

He would turn us red the convert..
He would pay Sam then convert...
He would resolve Malky then convert...

We are Red...
Sam is paid..
Malky is resolved ..

Yet.......

If they're not lies mate then what are they?


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=138338&hilit=+Tan+a+liar

The way I look at it is; if he leaves and has not resolved this issue then there could be the possibility that he lied but until then though I don't think its fair to judge. For example, when he said the statement he could have had every intention of doing it but things might not have made it possible. Alternatively, and let's be honest, you would all be saying this about him now and then a few weeks down the line then he could convert and wipe all the debt away.

For me Tan just hasn't fulfilled his promise yet. That doesn't mean he's lying! If you go to the BBC article that's been referenced by Annis and Chuckles in a thread I posted a link to above then Tan never puts a time frame on making us debt free. The only time frame is on the Langston deal and that it COULD pave the way to us being debt free.

Now i've been accused of things to try and warp my personality to sort of suggest I'm not a clear thinker. But to be honest I just try to take a balanced perspective and look at things from every angle and possibility and reserve jumping to conclusions on this matter until I have all the facts. When the truth is none of us have but far too many are jumping to conclusions and colluding to lead the fans to perceive things in a certain way (and the origins of this thread is testament to this happening). Chuckles has been a fairly voiciferous supporter of Annis and has hounded me the past few weeks, the pay off is this article which has been published and as many have recognised is very poor quality

Natman but the point is you are not being balanced, you are taking a stance which I respect but I don't agree with it.

You have chosen to stand by Tan no matter how long he is stringing you along with false hope.

The majority of City fans who accepted the changes by the rebrand did so BECAUSE of the promise of debt to equity, you can dress it up as much as you like but the truth is that it was stated Tan would convert the debt once he had settled Langston.

He has failed to do so.

And in his latest interview he said he may convert £50m of the debt to him which in his words is £120m+.

If you are stating you are being balanced then at least show a little of the negatives created by the man.

Otherwise you will struggle to be respected by many.

but if he converts say 50 million couldn't the club cover the rest with players sales and the increased revenue ? To date ole is not spending wild amounts of money just a thought

It's a fair point Wez, but not what was promised at the time of rebranding though was it ?

With all due respect, he hasn't lied. He just hasn't fulfilled all his promises yet, that doesn't make him a liar by any stretch of the imagination. Its a phrase that is being bandied about and it shouldn't be

Nat,he has lied...
Just as Peter did before him....

He would turn us red the convert..
He would pay Sam then convert...
He would resolve Malky then convert...

We are Red...
Sam is paid..
Malky is resolved ..

Yet.......

If they're not lies mate then what are they?


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=138338&hilit=+Tan+a+liar

The way I look at it is; if he leaves and has not resolved this issue then there could be the possibility that he lied but until then though I don't think its fair to judge. For example, when he said the statement he could have had every intention of doing it but things might not have made it possible. Alternatively, and let's be honest, you would all be saying this about him now and then a few weeks down the line then he could convert and wipe all the debt away.

For me Tan just hasn't fulfilled his promise yet. That doesn't mean he's lying! If you go to the BBC article that's been referenced by Annis and Chuckles in a thread I posted a link to above then Tan never puts a time frame on making us debt free. The only time frame is on the Langston deal and that it COULD pave the way to us being debt free.

Now i've been accused of things to try and warp my personality to sort of suggest I'm not a clear thinker. But to be honest I just try to take a balanced perspective and look at things from every angle and possibility and reserve jumping to conclusions on this matter until I have all the facts. When the truth is none of us have but far too many are jumping to conclusions and colluding to lead the fans to perceive things in a certain way (and the origins of this thread is testament to this happening). Chuckles has been a fairly voiciferous supporter of Annis and has hounded me the past few weeks, the pay off is this article which has been published and as many have recognised is very poor quality

Natman but the point is you are not being balanced, you are taking a stance which I respect but I don't agree with it.

You have chosen to stand by Tan no matter how long he is stringing you along with false hope.

The majority of City fans who accepted the changes by the rebrand did so BECAUSE of the promise of debt to equity, you can dress it up as much as you like but the truth is that it was stated Tan would convert the debt once he had settled Langston.

He has failed to do so.

And in his latest interview he said he may convert £50m of the debt to him which in his words is £120m+.

If you are stating you are being balanced then at least show a little of the negatives created by the man.

Otherwise you will struggle to be respected by many.

Firstly, didn't the Malky situation begin to materialise whilst the Sam issue was being resolved???

Secondly, as some have alluded, with the fan base as it is would you want to convert at the present time??? As many (including myself) have argued, dialogue is what is required not confrontation!

Thirdly, £50m is better than nothing. What if this is the start? It's got to start somewhere!

Also, I haven't chosen to stand by Tan no matter what. As I've said in a few posts regarding what my views on his apparent 'lying'. What I'm trying to do is strike a balance to his constant bashing that he receives on here. You might argue that i overtly defend him, many people on here argue that this board overtly and unjustly vilify him.

What the hell has the Malky situation and Sam Hammam got to do with each other, and you say a few of us got agendas, c'mon Nat now you really are taking the mick surely ?

Part of the reason why the fan base is divided is because he has not converted, can't you see that ?

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

so how many more back up plans and excuses does tan have left now that the malkay situation is over , hmmm and instead of doin what he promised to do , he came out and said maybe if we get back to the prem we will have a kit compromise trying to win some of the fans back but we all know this is bullshit , if he was serious he would do it right now .

tan is smart , he played us for fools and it worked but the tide has turned yet we stil get some tan cock suckers defending him when facts are facts and he is a f*cking lier !

Last edited by Canton stand bluebird on Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Let's get this back to its original question, who is responsible for our position today ?

League status, debt amount, etc.

Vincent Tan is responsible for the level of debt that this club has today.

When Tan entered the club with a pledge of £6m, which I am grateful for as it saved us from the taxman, but don't kid yourself that he did it for no other reason than a calculated low risk gamble.

The gamble didn't pay off and Tan could have walked away after the defeat to Blackpool but he fancied another spin of roulette but this time it was not a one off match but a season long gamble.

Remember, the short term outlook of loaning players to try and achieve promotion, not paying transfers but going for borrowing players to try and reach the rainbow of cash that is the Premier League.

Tan had the books looked over not once but twice and had his eyes wide open when he invested, he knew what the club owed out and he wanted to take the club on, lock stock and barrel.

Before Tan came along, we were battling near the top of the Championship, with a level of debt that many said we could not sustain.

Today out debt has spiralled and we are back to square one but have suffered the humiliation as supporters of going through a whimsical rebrand of one man.

We are a football club and too many people are happy to tell others just enjoy the football and leave the politics to the ones in the club, well my question would be, we are back where we were when Tan came in, are you enjoying you football ?

We're not back where we were when Tan came in. When Tan cam in it wasn't an amount we couldn't sustain, it was amount which would have spelled then end! The tax man isn't looking to wind us up, we've had a stadium expansion, a stint in the top flight (with a view to a quick return) and a state of the art training ground going through planning permission. We've come on leaps and bounds, which is the point a fair many other posters in this thread are trying to point out. The situation before Tan cam in was also far worse than what the OP indicates.

This 'short erm gamble' theory. Could you provide me with any evidence to suggest this was Tan's business plan??? Maybe an alternative way of understanding the 'loanee' year was to keep player expenditure (transfer fees) down whilst Tan got into the business set up? The face is you don't know, but neither do i and its all purely guess work which we and you shouldn't be putting out as fact.

Without wanting to derail, answer this question; did Sam lie when he said the debt goes with him?

Let's get this back to its original question, who is responsible for our position today ?

League status, debt amount, etc.

Vincent Tan is responsible for the level of debt that this club has today.

When Tan entered the club with a pledge of £6m, which I am grateful for as it saved us from the taxman, but don't kid yourself that he did it for no other reason than a calculated low risk gamble.

The gamble didn't pay off and Tan could have walked away after the defeat to Blackpool but he fancied another spin of roulette but this time it was not a one off match but a season long gamble.

Remember, the short term outlook of loaning players to try and achieve promotion, not paying transfers but going for borrowing players to try and reach the rainbow of cash that is the Premier League.

Tan had the books looked over not once but twice and had his eyes wide open when he invested, he knew what the club owed out and he wanted to take the club on, lock stock and barrel.

Before Tan came along, we were battling near the top of the Championship, with a level of debt that many said we could not sustain.

Today out debt has spiralled and we are back to square one but have suffered the humiliation as supporters of going through a whimsical rebrand of one man.

We are a football club and too many people are happy to tell others just enjoy the football and leave the politics to the ones in the club, well my question would be, we are back where we were when Tan came in, are you enjoying you football ?

We're not back where we were when Tan came in. When Tan cam in it wasn't an amount we couldn't sustain, it was amount which would have spelled then end! The tax man isn't looking to wind us up, we've had a stadium expansion, a stint in the top flight (with a view to a quick return) and a state of the art training ground going through planning permission. We've come on leaps and bounds, which is the point a fair many other posters in this thread are trying to point out. The situation before Tan cam in was also far worse than what the OP indicates.

This 'short erm gamble' theory. Could you provide me with any evidence to suggest this was Tan's business plan??? Maybe an alternative way of understanding the 'loanee' year was to keep player expenditure (transfer fees) down whilst Tan got into the business set up? The face is you don't know, but neither do i and its all purely guess work which we and you shouldn't be putting out as fact.

Without wanting to derail, answer this question; did Sam lie when he said the debt goes with him?

I will answer the question in a way you will understand.

If Sam had left of his own accord and not forced out like he was by the backstabbers then maybe the debt would have left with him.

But he wasn't given the opportunity as others were circling for their pound of flesh.

Guess we will never know because it didn't pan out the way Sam had envisaged.

He knew he wax building up debt but believed the club could wipe them out with the stadium build and all it brings to wipe the debt.

With all due respect, he hasn't lied. He just hasn't fulfilled all his promises yet, that doesn't make him a liar by any stretch of the imagination. Its a phrase that is being bandied about and it shouldn't be

Nat,he has lied...
Just as Peter did before him....

He would turn us red the convert..
He would pay Sam then convert...
He would resolve Malky then convert...

We are Red...
Sam is paid..
Malky is resolved ..

Yet.......

If they're not lies mate then what are they?


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=138338&hilit=+Tan+a+liar

The way I look at it is; if he leaves and has not resolved this issue then there could be the possibility that he lied but until then though I don't think its fair to judge. For example, when he said the statement he could have had every intention of doing it but things might not have made it possible. Alternatively, and let's be honest, you would all be saying this about him now and then a few weeks down the line then he could convert and wipe all the debt away.

For me Tan just hasn't fulfilled his promise yet. That doesn't mean he's lying! If you go to the BBC article that's been referenced by Annis and Chuckles in a thread I posted a link to above then Tan never puts a time frame on making us debt free. The only time frame is on the Langston deal and that it COULD pave the way to us being debt free.

Now i've been accused of things to try and warp my personality to sort of suggest I'm not a clear thinker. But to be honest I just try to take a balanced perspective and look at things from every angle and possibility and reserve jumping to conclusions on this matter until I have all the facts. When the truth is none of us have but far too many are jumping to conclusions and colluding to lead the fans to perceive things in a certain way (and the origins of this thread is testament to this happening). Chuckles has been a fairly voiciferous supporter of Annis and has hounded me the past few weeks, the pay off is this article which has been published and as many have recognised is very poor quality

Natman but the point is you are not being balanced, you are taking a stance which I respect but I don't agree with it.

You have chosen to stand by Tan no matter how long he is stringing you along with false hope.

The majority of City fans who accepted the changes by the rebrand did so BECAUSE of the promise of debt to equity, you can dress it up as much as you like but the truth is that it was stated Tan would convert the debt once he had settled Langston.

He has failed to do so.

And in his latest interview he said he may convert £50m of the debt to him which in his words is £120m+.

If you are stating you are being balanced then at least show a little of the negatives created by the man.

Otherwise you will struggle to be respected by many.

Firstly, didn't the Malky situation begin to materialise whilst the Sam issue was being resolved???

Secondly, as some have alluded, with the fan base as it is would you want to convert at the present time??? As many (including myself) have argued, dialogue is what is required not confrontation!

Thirdly, £50m is better than nothing. What if this is the start? It's got to start somewhere!

Also, I haven't chosen to stand by Tan no matter what. As I've said in a few posts regarding what my views on his apparent 'lying'. What I'm trying to do is strike a balance to his constant bashing that he receives on here. You might argue that i overtly defend him, many people on here argue that this board overtly and unjustly vilify him.

What the hell has the Malky situation and Sam Hammam got to do with each other, and you say a few of us got agendas, c'mon Nat now you really are taking the mick surely ?

Part of the reason why the fan base is divided is because he has not converted, can't you see that ?

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

YOU WANT..??????.........i wanna swing on a star too.............bloody hell.......we are not in court nxt week ....tan is not chasing himself for a debt that he cannot pay back....the majority of fans..would prefer blue..but are totally pissed off with the anti tan agenda.......and people talking about debt to equity as if its the end of the world............he says he has put 140mill into the club.............turn up with 140 mill its yours..debt free...........yes?...oh if he converts debt to equity he can no longer just take money out from the club{ but doesnt anyway }.......yes i read that...lol.......
none of us are financial whiz kids........none are self made billionaires..........none of us are tans financial advisors....
and you get comments like....the debt is out of control.................we cant pay the repayments?..interst rates are too high?

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

You mean gifted? As that is what it would be.

With all due respect, he hasn't lied. He just hasn't fulfilled all his promises yet, that doesn't make him a liar by any stretch of the imagination. Its a phrase that is being bandied about and it shouldn't be

Nat,he has lied...
Just as Peter did before him....

He would turn us red the convert..
He would pay Sam then convert...
He would resolve Malky then convert...

We are Red...
Sam is paid..
Malky is resolved ..

Yet.......

If they're not lies mate then what are they?


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=138338&hilit=+Tan+a+liar

The way I look at it is; if he leaves and has not resolved this issue then there could be the possibility that he lied but until then though I don't think its fair to judge. For example, when he said the statement he could have had every intention of doing it but things might not have made it possible. Alternatively, and let's be honest, you would all be saying this about him now and then a few weeks down the line then he could convert and wipe all the debt away.

For me Tan just hasn't fulfilled his promise yet. That doesn't mean he's lying! If you go to the BBC article that's been referenced by Annis and Chuckles in a thread I posted a link to above then Tan never puts a time frame on making us debt free. The only time frame is on the Langston deal and that it COULD pave the way to us being debt free.

Now i've been accused of things to try and warp my personality to sort of suggest I'm not a clear thinker. But to be honest I just try to take a balanced perspective and look at things from every angle and possibility and reserve jumping to conclusions on this matter until I have all the facts. When the truth is none of us have but far too many are jumping to conclusions and colluding to lead the fans to perceive things in a certain way (and the origins of this thread is testament to this happening). Chuckles has been a fairly voiciferous supporter of Annis and has hounded me the past few weeks, the pay off is this article which has been published and as many have recognised is very poor quality

Natman but the point is you are not being balanced, you are taking a stance which I respect but I don't agree with it.

You have chosen to stand by Tan no matter how long he is stringing you along with false hope.

The majority of City fans who accepted the changes by the rebrand did so BECAUSE of the promise of debt to equity, you can dress it up as much as you like but the truth is that it was stated Tan would convert the debt once he had settled Langston.

He has failed to do so.

And in his latest interview he said he may convert £50m of the debt to him which in his words is £120m+.

If you are stating you are being balanced then at least show a little of the negatives created by the man.

Otherwise you will struggle to be respected by many.

Firstly, didn't the Malky situation begin to materialise whilst the Sam issue was being resolved???

Secondly, as some have alluded, with the fan base as it is would you want to convert at the present time??? As many (including myself) have argued, dialogue is what is required not confrontation!

Thirdly, £50m is better than nothing. What if this is the start? It's got to start somewhere!

Also, I haven't chosen to stand by Tan no matter what. As I've said in a few posts regarding what my views on his apparent 'lying'. What I'm trying to do is strike a balance to his constant bashing that he receives on here. You might argue that i overtly defend him, many people on here argue that this board overtly and unjustly vilify him.

What the hell has the Malky situation and Sam Hammam got to do with each other, and you say a few of us got agendas, c'mon Nat now you really are taking the mick surely ?

Part of the reason why the fan base is divided is because he has not converted, can't you see that ?

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

YOU WANT..??????.........i wanna swing on a star too.............bloody hell.......we are not in court nxt week ....tan is not chasing himself for a debt that he cannot pay back....the majority of fans..would prefer blue..but are totally pissed off with the anti tan agenda.......and people talking about debt to equity as if its the end of the world............he says he has put 140mill into the club.............turn up with 140 mill its yours..debt free...........yes?...oh if he converts debt to equity he can no longer just take money out from the club{ but doesnt anyway }.......yes i read that...lol.......
none of us are financial whiz kids........none are self made billionaires..........none of us are tans financial advisors....
and you get comments like....the debt is out of control.................we cant pay the repayments?..interst rates are too high?

Yes, I WANT!!!

I pay my money and I have a voice.

I accepted the rebranding for one reason and one reason only, to be debt free and I was told, yes I was told in a private meeting between club officials and 15 fans that we would be debt free if Tan got his red shirts.

I went along with my part of the agreement and he has failed on his.

So absolutely, with sugar on top, I WANT.

With all due respect, he hasn't lied. He just hasn't fulfilled all his promises yet, that doesn't make him a liar by any stretch of the imagination. Its a phrase that is being bandied about and it shouldn't be

Nat,he has lied...
Just as Peter did before him....

He would turn us red the convert..
He would pay Sam then convert...
He would resolve Malky then convert...

We are Red...
Sam is paid..
Malky is resolved ..

Yet.......

If they're not lies mate then what are they?


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=138338&hilit=+Tan+a+liar

The way I look at it is; if he leaves and has not resolved this issue then there could be the possibility that he lied but until then though I don't think its fair to judge. For example, when he said the statement he could have had every intention of doing it but things might not have made it possible. Alternatively, and let's be honest, you would all be saying this about him now and then a few weeks down the line then he could convert and wipe all the debt away.

For me Tan just hasn't fulfilled his promise yet. That doesn't mean he's lying! If you go to the BBC article that's been referenced by Annis and Chuckles in a thread I posted a link to above then Tan never puts a time frame on making us debt free. The only time frame is on the Langston deal and that it COULD pave the way to us being debt free.

Now i've been accused of things to try and warp my personality to sort of suggest I'm not a clear thinker. But to be honest I just try to take a balanced perspective and look at things from every angle and possibility and reserve jumping to conclusions on this matter until I have all the facts. When the truth is none of us have but far too many are jumping to conclusions and colluding to lead the fans to perceive things in a certain way (and the origins of this thread is testament to this happening). Chuckles has been a fairly voiciferous supporter of Annis and has hounded me the past few weeks, the pay off is this article which has been published and as many have recognised is very poor quality

Natman but the point is you are not being balanced, you are taking a stance which I respect but I don't agree with it.

You have chosen to stand by Tan no matter how long he is stringing you along with false hope.

The majority of City fans who accepted the changes by the rebrand did so BECAUSE of the promise of debt to equity, you can dress it up as much as you like but the truth is that it was stated Tan would convert the debt once he had settled Langston.

He has failed to do so.

And in his latest interview he said he may convert £50m of the debt to him which in his words is £120m+.

If you are stating you are being balanced then at least show a little of the negatives created by the man.

Otherwise you will struggle to be respected by many.

Firstly, didn't the Malky situation begin to materialise whilst the Sam issue was being resolved???

Secondly, as some have alluded, with the fan base as it is would you want to convert at the present time??? As many (including myself) have argued, dialogue is what is required not confrontation!

Thirdly, £50m is better than nothing. What if this is the start? It's got to start somewhere!

Also, I haven't chosen to stand by Tan no matter what. As I've said in a few posts regarding what my views on his apparent 'lying'. What I'm trying to do is strike a balance to his constant bashing that he receives on here. You might argue that i overtly defend him, many people on here argue that this board overtly and unjustly vilify him.

What the hell has the Malky situation and Sam Hammam got to do with each other, and you say a few of us got agendas, c'mon Nat now you really are taking the mick surely ?

Part of the reason why the fan base is divided is because he has not converted, can't you see that ?

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

YOU WANT..??????.........i wanna swing on a star too.............bloody hell.......we are not in court nxt week ....tan is not chasing himself for a debt that he cannot pay back....the majority of fans..would prefer blue..but are totally pissed off with the anti tan agenda.......and people talking about debt to equity as if its the end of the world............he says he has put 140mill into the club.............turn up with 140 mill its yours..debt free...........yes?...oh if he converts debt to equity he can no longer just take money out from the club{ but doesnt anyway }.......yes i read that...lol.......
none of us are financial whiz kids........none are self made billionaires..........none of us are tans financial advisors....
and you get comments like....the debt is out of control.................we cant pay the repayments?..interst rates are too high?

Yes, I WANT!!!

I pay my money and I have a voice.

I accepted the rebranding for one reason and one reason only, to be debt free and I was told, yes I was told in a private meeting between club officials and 15 fans that we would be debt free if Tan got his red shirts.

I went along with my part of the agreement and he has failed on his.

So absolutely, with sugar on top, I WANT.

you do realise that debt free today..does not mean debt free under a new owner dont you?

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

You mean gifted? As that is what it would be.

Usually people give gifts for no return, if he put in £50m and had shares in return, is that a gift ?

No it is a deal.

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

You mean gifted? As that is what it would be.

Usually people give gifts for no return, if he put in £50m and had shares in return, is that a gift ?

No it is a deal.

I'm sure that makes sense in your head

If you stamp your feet harder I'm sure Tan will gift/write off all the money he has spent on your club

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

You mean gifted? As that is what it would be.

Usually people give gifts for no return, if he put in £50m and had shares in return, is that a gift ?

No it is a deal.

Um no it's a gift really unless your vastly overpricing the club.

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

You mean gifted? As that is what it would be.

Usually people give gifts for no return, if he put in £50m and had shares in return, is that a gift ?

No it is a deal.

you do realise that debt free now..does not mean that we would be debt free under a new owner?

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

You mean gifted? As that is what it would be.

Usually people give gifts for no return, if he put in £50m and had shares in return, is that a gift ?

No it is a deal.

I'm sure that makes sense in your head

If you stamp your feet harder I'm sure Tan will gift/write off all the money he has spent on your club

We could just sit back and do f**k all and let it go bottom up and possible administration and pay back 5p in the £1.

If that doesn't work we could try it a second time.

But there again what sort of fan base would care so little to let that happen not once but twice

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

You mean gifted? As that is what it would be.

Usually people give gifts for no return, if he put in £50m and had shares in return, is that a gift ?

No it is a deal.

Um no it's a gift really unless your vastly overpricing the club.

Oops silly me, I thought it was Tan that said he would convert ALL the debt to equity, not me.

Perhaps that's where I am going wrong

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

You mean gifted? As that is what it would be.

Usually people give gifts for no return, if he put in £50m and had shares in return, is that a gift ?

No it is a deal.

I'm sure that makes sense in your head

If you stamp your feet harder I'm sure Tan will gift/write off all the money he has spent on your club

We could just sit back and do f**k all and let it go bottom up and possible administration and pay back 5p in the £1.

If that doesn't work we could try it a second time.

But there again what sort of fan base would care so little to let that happen not once but twice

Wow, you're really struggling now

We saw off our rouge owner within months of him taking charge, but then you know that.

You sat back and sold your identity for a promise of cash, despite the fact the figures never added up and now you cry over it.

Not unlike when you sat back and all bought into the the golden ticket scheme on the promise of all the money being spent in January on transfers without a single thought of how the following season would be funded.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice......

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

You mean gifted? As that is what it would be.

Usually people give gifts for no return, if he put in £50m and had shares in return, is that a gift ?

No it is a deal.

Um no it's a gift really unless your vastly overpricing the club.

Oops silly me, I thought it was Tan that said he would convert ALL the debt to equity, not me.

Perhaps that's where I am going wrong

No that's not where you went wrong I just told you where you went wrong.
An when he said he'd convert ALL the debt to equity the debt was less.
Another thing you said as well the fan base is split over the debt to equity I have never heard one person mention it.
Fans might of been split over the colour but that's changing almost everybody wants blue back now.

I will end it with something we can both agree on Natman is abosolute wanker

should VT leave this club..........what exit strategy he takes,id assume will be weighed by two things........finance...and how he feels towards the club he is leaving.............you know the tear in the eye as you leave behind something thats become part of you...........no chance here....keep the hate up boys.......then come on here and say how concerned about debts you are......

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

You mean gifted? As that is what it would be.

Usually people give gifts for no return, if he put in £50m and had shares in return, is that a gift ?

No it is a deal.

I'm sure that makes sense in your head

If you stamp your feet harder I'm sure Tan will gift/write off all the money he has spent on your club

We could just sit back and do f**k all and let it go bottom up and possible administration and pay back 5p in the £1.

If that doesn't work we could try it a second time.

But there again what sort of fan base would care so little to let that happen not once but twice

Wow, you're really struggling now

We saw off our rouge owner within months of him taking charge, but then you know that.

You sat back and sold your identity for a promise of cash, despite the fact the figures never added up and now you cry over it.

Not unlike when you sat back and all bought into the the golden ticket scheme on the promise of all the money being spent in January on transfers without a single thought of how the following season would be funded.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice......

Do you think we wouldn't have bought season tickets anyway

Grasping now NJ.

I accepted, not sat back, on a promise of becoming debt free, means a lot to me that.

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

You mean gifted? As that is what it would be.

Usually people give gifts for no return, if he put in £50m and had shares in return, is that a gift ?

No it is a deal.

Um no it's a gift really unless your vastly overpricing the club.

Oops silly me, I thought it was Tan that said he would convert ALL the debt to equity, not me.

Perhaps that's where I am going wrong

No that's not where you went wrong I just told you where you went wrong.
An when he said he'd convert ALL the debt to equity the debt was less.
Another thing you said as well the fan base is split over the debt to equity I have never heard one person mention it.
Fans might of been split over the colour but that's changing almost everybody wants blue back now.

I will end it with something we can both agree on Natman is abosolute wanker

Correct the debt was less, but who is responsible for the debt increasing ?

Not everybody is as vociferous about the return to blue as you think.

And regarding Natman, well

Just because he increased the debt doesn't mean he's willing to convert the extra debt.

By converting all of it now he'd just be throwing alot of money down the drain that he'd never get back. Only an idiot would do that.

Just because he increased the debt doesn't mean he's willing to convert the extra debt.

By converting all of it now he'd just be throwing alot of money down the drain that he'd never get back. Only an idiot would do that.

correct.......debts can be reduced as well as increased.............none of us now what his plans are..or should we...fans dont run clubs in this country...and even where the fan input is far greater they are not aware of everything as it happens.......
if tan had converted 2 years ago..would we be in debt now ..YES
if he converts tomorrow but continues spending more than revenue will we be in debt nxt year...YES

its just anti tan for the sake of being anti tan...............

Let's get this back to its original question, who is responsible for our position today ?

League status, debt amount, etc.

Vincent Tan is responsible for the level of debt that this club has today.

When Tan entered the club with a pledge of £6m, which I am grateful for as it saved us from the taxman, but don't kid yourself that he did it for no other reason than a calculated low risk gamble.

The gamble didn't pay off and Tan could have walked away after the defeat to Blackpool but he fancied another spin of roulette but this time it was not a one off match but a season long gamble.

Remember, the short term outlook of loaning players to try and achieve promotion, not paying transfers but going for borrowing players to try and reach the rainbow of cash that is the Premier League.

Tan had the books looked over not once but twice and had his eyes wide open when he invested, he knew what the club owed out and he wanted to take the club on, lock stock and barrel.

Before Tan came along, we were battling near the top of the Championship, with a level of debt that many said we could not sustain.

Today out debt has spiralled and we are back to square one but have suffered the humiliation as supporters of going through a whimsical rebrand of one man.

We are a football club and too many people are happy to tell others just enjoy the football and leave the politics to the ones in the club, well my question would be, we are back where we were when Tan came in, are you enjoying you football ?

We're not back where we were when Tan came in. When Tan cam in it wasn't an amount we couldn't sustain, it was amount which would have spelled then end! The tax man isn't looking to wind us up, we've had a stadium expansion, a stint in the top flight (with a view to a quick return) and a state of the art training ground going through planning permission. We've come on leaps and bounds, which is the point a fair many other posters in this thread are trying to point out. The situation before Tan cam in was also far worse than what the OP indicates.

This 'short erm gamble' theory. Could you provide me with any evidence to suggest this was Tan's business plan??? Maybe an alternative way of understanding the 'loanee' year was to keep player expenditure (transfer fees) down whilst Tan got into the business set up? The face is you don't know, but neither do i and its all purely guess work which we and you shouldn't be putting out as fact.

Without wanting to derail, answer this question; did Sam lie when he said the debt goes with him?

I will answer the question in a way you will understand.

If Sam had left of his own accord and not forced out like he was by the backstabbers then maybe the debt would have left with him.

But he wasn't given the opportunity as others were circling for their pound of flesh.

Guess we will never know because it didn't pan out the way Sam had envisaged.

He knew he wax building up debt but believed the club could wipe them out with the stadium build and all it brings to wipe the debt.

I guess it was no secret but now we know for sure where you're getting your information from because that story (which is all it is) is only one side and a very skewed one at that

With all due respect, he hasn't lied. He just hasn't fulfilled all his promises yet, that doesn't make him a liar by any stretch of the imagination. Its a phrase that is being bandied about and it shouldn't be

Nat,he has lied...
Just as Peter did before him....

He would turn us red the convert..
He would pay Sam then convert...
He would resolve Malky then convert...

We are Red...
Sam is paid..
Malky is resolved ..

Yet.......

If they're not lies mate then what are they?


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=138338&hilit=+Tan+a+liar

The way I look at it is; if he leaves and has not resolved this issue then there could be the possibility that he lied but until then though I don't think its fair to judge. For example, when he said the statement he could have had every intention of doing it but things might not have made it possible. Alternatively, and let's be honest, you would all be saying this about him now and then a few weeks down the line then he could convert and wipe all the debt away.

For me Tan just hasn't fulfilled his promise yet. That doesn't mean he's lying! If you go to the BBC article that's been referenced by Annis and Chuckles in a thread I posted a link to above then Tan never puts a time frame on making us debt free. The only time frame is on the Langston deal and that it COULD pave the way to us being debt free.

Now i've been accused of things to try and warp my personality to sort of suggest I'm not a clear thinker. But to be honest I just try to take a balanced perspective and look at things from every angle and possibility and reserve jumping to conclusions on this matter until I have all the facts. When the truth is none of us have but far too many are jumping to conclusions and colluding to lead the fans to perceive things in a certain way (and the origins of this thread is testament to this happening). Chuckles has been a fairly voiciferous supporter of Annis and has hounded me the past few weeks, the pay off is this article which has been published and as many have recognised is very poor quality

Natman but the point is you are not being balanced, you are taking a stance which I respect but I don't agree with it.

You have chosen to stand by Tan no matter how long he is stringing you along with false hope.

The majority of City fans who accepted the changes by the rebrand did so BECAUSE of the promise of debt to equity, you can dress it up as much as you like but the truth is that it was stated Tan would convert the debt once he had settled Langston.

He has failed to do so.

And in his latest interview he said he may convert £50m of the debt to him which in his words is £120m+.

If you are stating you are being balanced then at least show a little of the negatives created by the man.

Otherwise you will struggle to be respected by many.

Firstly, didn't the Malky situation begin to materialise whilst the Sam issue was being resolved???

Secondly, as some have alluded, with the fan base as it is would you want to convert at the present time??? As many (including myself) have argued, dialogue is what is required not confrontation!

Thirdly, £50m is better than nothing. What if this is the start? It's got to start somewhere!

Also, I haven't chosen to stand by Tan no matter what. As I've said in a few posts regarding what my views on his apparent 'lying'. What I'm trying to do is strike a balance to his constant bashing that he receives on here. You might argue that i overtly defend him, many people on here argue that this board overtly and unjustly vilify him.

What the hell has the Malky situation and Sam Hammam got to do with each other, and you say a few of us got agendas, c'mon Nat now you really are taking the mick surely ?

Part of the reason why the fan base is divided is because he has not converted, can't you see that ?

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

time frames. Whilst the Sam situation was being sorted at the beginning of last season the Malky one was beginning to develop. birth would put a hold on things

If Tan had put £50m in and no more then £50m converted would be brilliant but he has put in treble and I want it all converted.

You mean gifted? As that is what it would be.

Usually people give gifts for no return, if he put in £50m and had shares in return, is that a gift ?

No it is a deal.

Um no it's a gift really unless your vastly overpricing the club.

Oops silly me, I thought it was Tan that said he would convert ALL the debt to equity, not me.

Perhaps that's where I am going wrong

No that's not where you went wrong I just told you where you went wrong.
An when he said he'd convert ALL the debt to equity the debt was less.
Another thing you said as well the fan base is split over the debt to equity I have never heard one person mention it.
Fans might of been split over the colour but that's changing almost everybody wants blue back now.

I will end it with something we can both agree on Natman is abosolute wanker

Correct the debt was less, but who is responsible for the debt increasing ?

Not everybody is as vociferous about the return to blue as you think.

And regarding Natman, well

oh, and keep throwing the insults as it just goes to show the complete lack of depth to your argument (carl and 86)

Let's get this back to its original question, who is responsible for our position today ?

League status, debt amount, etc.

Vincent Tan is responsible for the level of debt that this club has today.

When Tan entered the club with a pledge of £6m, which I am grateful for as it saved us from the taxman, but don't kid yourself that he did it for no other reason than a calculated low risk gamble.

The gamble didn't pay off and Tan could have walked away after the defeat to Blackpool but he fancied another spin of roulette but this time it was not a one off match but a season long gamble.

Remember, the short term outlook of loaning players to try and achieve promotion, not paying transfers but going for borrowing players to try and reach the rainbow of cash that is the Premier League.

Tan had the books looked over not once but twice and had his eyes wide open when he invested, he knew what the club owed out and he wanted to take the club on, lock stock and barrel.

Before Tan came along, we were battling near the top of the Championship, with a level of debt that many said we could not sustain.

Today out debt has spiralled and we are back to square one but have suffered the humiliation as supporters of going through a whimsical rebrand of one man.

We are a football club and too many people are happy to tell others just enjoy the football and leave the politics to the ones in the club, well my question would be, we are back where we were when Tan came in, are you enjoying you football ?

We're not back where we were when Tan came in. When Tan cam in it wasn't an amount we couldn't sustain, it was amount which would have spelled then end! The tax man isn't looking to wind us up, we've had a stadium expansion, a stint in the top flight (with a view to a quick return) and a state of the art training ground going through planning permission. We've come on leaps and bounds, which is the point a fair many other posters in this thread are trying to point out. The situation before Tan cam in was also far worse than what the OP indicates.

This 'short erm gamble' theory. Could you provide me with any evidence to suggest this was Tan's business plan??? Maybe an alternative way of understanding the 'loanee' year was to keep player expenditure (transfer fees) down whilst Tan got into the business set up? The face is you don't know, but neither do i and its all purely guess work which we and you shouldn't be putting out as fact.

Without wanting to derail, answer this question; did Sam lie when he said the debt goes with him?

I will answer the question in a way you will understand.

If Sam had left of his own accord and not forced out like he was by the backstabbers then maybe the debt would have left with him.

But he wasn't given the opportunity as others were circling for their pound of flesh.

Guess we will never know because it didn't pan out the way Sam had envisaged.

He knew he wax building up debt but believed the club could wipe them out with the stadium build and all it brings to wipe the debt.

I guess it was no secret but now we know for sure where you're getting your information from because that story (which is all it is) is only one side and a very skewed one at that

he knew he was building up debts......BUT believed etc etc...........jesus...a man with a plan.......
sam didnt have the resources..........and tbh played a far far more dangerous game than VT does.........{ for the record,i have never slaughtered Sam, his fault was he believed in our club too much }........but being sensible about it,anyone,myself included who cuts him slack..shouldnt go near having a go at VT..........hypocrites..

Let's get this back to its original question, who is responsible for our position today ?

League status, debt amount, etc.

Vincent Tan is responsible for the level of debt that this club has today.

When Tan entered the club with a pledge of £6m, which I am grateful for as it saved us from the taxman, but don't kid yourself that he did it for no other reason than a calculated low risk gamble.

The gamble didn't pay off and Tan could have walked away after the defeat to Blackpool but he fancied another spin of roulette but this time it was not a one off match but a season long gamble.

Remember, the short term outlook of loaning players to try and achieve promotion, not paying transfers but going for borrowing players to try and reach the rainbow of cash that is the Premier League.

Tan had the books looked over not once but twice and had his eyes wide open when he invested, he knew what the club owed out and he wanted to take the club on, lock stock and barrel.

Before Tan came along, we were battling near the top of the Championship, with a level of debt that many said we could not sustain.

Today out debt has spiralled and we are back to square one but have suffered the humiliation as supporters of going through a whimsical rebrand of one man.

We are a football club and too many people are happy to tell others just enjoy the football and leave the politics to the ones in the club, well my question would be, we are back where we were when Tan came in, are you enjoying you football ?

We're not back where we were when Tan came in. When Tan cam in it wasn't an amount we couldn't sustain, it was amount which would have spelled then end! The tax man isn't looking to wind us up, we've had a stadium expansion, a stint in the top flight (with a view to a quick return) and a state of the art training ground going through planning permission. We've come on leaps and bounds, which is the point a fair many other posters in this thread are trying to point out. The situation before Tan cam in was also far worse than what the OP indicates.

This 'short erm gamble' theory. Could you provide me with any evidence to suggest this was Tan's business plan??? Maybe an alternative way of understanding the 'loanee' year was to keep player expenditure (transfer fees) down whilst Tan got into the business set up? The face is you don't know, but neither do i and its all purely guess work which we and you shouldn't be putting out as fact.

Without wanting to derail, answer this question; did Sam lie when he said the debt goes with him?

I will answer the question in a way you will understand.

If Sam had left of his own accord and not forced out like he was by the backstabbers then maybe the debt would have left with him.

But he wasn't given the opportunity as others were circling for their pound of flesh.

Guess we will never know because it didn't pan out the way Sam had envisaged.

He knew he wax building up debt but believed the club could wipe them out with the stadium build and all it brings to wipe the debt.

' Cardiff City Owners '
link
http://www.annisabraham.co.uk/news/

Since 2000, we have had a number of controversial owners, all of whom have split the fan base on certain issues.

Sam Hammam took over in 2000 and inherited a £3million debt on a club in Division 3. During his tenure, we rose through the leagues and at the time of his departure, the club were 6 points clear at the top of the Championship.

During this time, Hammam accrued a £24million debt & started to push through plans for an all new stadium, which, in later years, would eventually come to be the CCS we know and love.

Peter Ridsdale took over the club & continued to keep it afloat, whilst finalising Hammam's work on the new stadium & eventually delivered it. During his time at the club, Ridsdale rose to the heights of FA Cup final appearances and big name signings, to the lows of misleading the fans and several winding up orders over unpaid tax.

Ridsdale spent lots of time looking for outside investment & it came just at the right time. Vincent Tan stepped in and saved the club from a £4million tax bill, days before a high court hearing, which could well have destroyed the club. The Ridsdale era had left the club in £28million of debt.

Prior to investing, I understand Tan had completed due diligence twice & knew of the sorry state of the Cardiff City accounts, as any business man would.

Tan spent one season bankrolling the club, before offering to invest in the club £100million, to clear Langston debt & to secure the long term future of CCFC. He would build a state of the art training ground, clear debt owed to Hammam, transfer his personal debt to equity & invest heavily in the playing squad for a real chance of promotion to the Premier League. The only drawback would be that Tan would enforce his rebrand on the club.

At first, there was outrage. Fans were up in arms. Tan backtracked and said he didn't wish to cause any offence & that the rebrand would be reversed. Personally, however, I doubt that this was ever going to happen, as the club had to submit colours and kits by April of that year, so the rules of the league state they would have to remain in red anyway.

I think it is fair to say that a big majority of these fans were reluctantly willing to accept the rebrand, after the threat of Tan walking away. Only a handful of supporters actively opposed the rebrand.

As he promised, Tan cleared debt owed to Hammam/Langston in July 2013. Him and Hammam came to an agreement which meant CCFC didn't have to pay the full amount owed. This was extremely good deal & credit to Tan for brokering it.

Tan then spoke in the press at how he aimed to make the club debt free, as he said in the original rebrand "agreement". Tan said in the interview that the debt to him at this time was £120million.

Fast forward 11 months and the club have just been relegated from the Premier League after a season of turmoil off the field, where the media have ridiculed the club from every corner. The debt at Cardiff City now stands at approx. £150million & Tan has now changed his thoughts on debt to equity, saying he will only change £50million, despite saying less than 12 months earlier, he aimed to make it totally debt free.

Come August 2014, we will be: -

- Playing in the same league as before the investment.
- A club totally bereft of any traditional identity.
- Totally split as a fan base.
- In more debt than ever before.. Over £100million more in debt prior to Tan's involvement.
- Will have less fans and ST holders supporting the club.

How are we better off?
Who is responsible?

All we gotta do is return to blue and its problem solved.

Another piece of nasty propaganda,laughable but expected.
Loved the i want stamp my feet bit from carl, even funnier than chuckles attempt at lazy journalism, don't give up the day job,that's if you have one

All we gotta do is return to blue and its problem solved.

But Carl is happy to go along with the rebrand as long as vt pays the debt off..

I accepted the rebranding for one reason and one reason only, to be debt free and I was told, yes I was told in a private meeting between club officials and 15 fans that we would be debt free if Tan got his red shirts.

I went along with my part of the agreement and he has failed on his.