' Cardiff City Owners '

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.

Excellent point

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.

Jesus carl i thought this had been done to death
not one word of what you have written is true.

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.

Jesus carl i thought this had been done to death
not one word of what you have written is true.

Which is great because I don't know how many times I've been told to ask what Steve Davies thinks!!!

So absolutely, with sugar on top, I WANT.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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.

Jesus carl i thought this had been done to death
not one word of what you have written is true.

Which is great because I don't know how many times I've been told to ask what Steve Davies thinks!!!

Steve thinks and writes with his head unlike some who simply want to feed their agendas.
Speak facts and common sense they either ignore the post or call you a Tan Lover.seeing the opening post a sticky is beyond belief. The
Persons to lazy to even research the contents
and prints one eyed drivel as facts. And guess what the usual ones try to justify it. Couldn't make it up oh hang on I haven't.

NOBODY........will ever run this club the way some want it run.............no matter what they do.......its like having an MOT on your car and then taking it to every garage within a 20 mile radius until you find a garage that finds something to fail it on..........

NOBODY........will ever run this club the way some want it run.............no matter what they do.......its like having an MOT on your car and then taking it to every garage within a 20 mile radius until you find a garage that finds something to fail it on..........

A crazy analogy...but I like it!

Sams arse lickers sticking up for him again even though he changed our identity told lies took us to the brink of going out of business and constantly interfered with the manager and squad.
Why didn't any of you speak up like you have with ridsdale and tan?? didnt hear a sam out from you lot i wonder why

Sams arse lickers sticking up for him again even though he changed our identity told lies took us to the brink of going out of business and constantly interfered with the manager and squad.
Why didn't any of you speak up like you have with ridsdale and tan?? didnt hear a sam out from you lot i wonder why

Because they were in the inner circle

Sams arse lickers sticking up for him again even though he changed our identity told lies took us to the brink of going out of business and constantly interfered with the manager and squad.
Why didn't any of you speak up like you have with ridsdale and tan?? didnt hear a sam out from you lot i wonder why

Because he bought them ice creams down the beach

Sams arse lickers sticking up for him again even though he changed our identity told lies took us to the brink of going out of business and constantly interfered with the manager and squad.
Why didn't any of you speak up like you have with ridsdale and tan?? didnt hear a sam out from you lot i wonder why

Because they were in the inner circle

Bullshit.

I was never part of the 'inner circle'.

Sams arse lickers sticking up for him again even though he changed our identity told lies took us to the brink of going out of business and constantly interfered with the manager and squad.
Why didn't any of you speak up like you have with ridsdale and tan?? didnt hear a sam out from you lot i wonder why

Because they were in the inner circle

Bullshit.

I was never part of the 'inner circle'.

Have I mentioned you ?

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.

Jesus carl i thought this had been done to death
not one word of what you have written is true.

Steve,

I have answered in a way that Nat the brat can understand, because by Nat the brat's take in things, he says Tan is not a liar about the debt to equity but he just hasn't got around to it yet.

And if Tan does leave and hasn't converted then maybe he hasn't lied, laughable really but that is what Natman believes.

I answered his question as a possible reason not a factual event or take on things, I thought people on here had a bit more intelligence to read what I wrote but I guess I was wrong

Regarding the truth and lies, I can state that your line about Sam's daughter living on a street called Langston in the US is a lie.

Thought I would set you straight

Sams arse lickers sticking up for him again even though he changed our identity told lies took us to the brink of going out of business and constantly interfered with the manager and squad.
Why didn't any of you speak up like you have with ridsdale and tan?? didnt hear a sam out from you lot i wonder why

Because they were in the inner circle

Bullshit.

I was never part of the 'inner circle'.

Have I mentioned you ?

Apparently Wez, I am sticking up for Sam in this thread so if you weren't on about me then please accept my apologies

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.

Excellent point

I have never said any different, don't know where you have been ?

Did you think you unearthed a gem

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.

Jesus carl i thought this had been done to death
not one word of what you have written is true.

Steve,

I have answered in a way that Nat the brat can understand, because by Nat the brat's take in things, he says Tan is not a liar about the debt to equity but he just hasn't got around to it yet.

And if Tan does leave and hasn't converted then maybe he hasn't lied, laughable really but that is what Natman believes.

I answered his question as a possible reason not a factual event or take on things, I thought people on here had a bit more intelligence to read what I wrote but I guess I was wrong

Regarding the truth and lies, I can state that your line about Sam's daughter living on a street called Langston in the US is a lie.

Thought I would set you straight

Carl

I was on about the part about Sam being forced out by backstabbers not the paragraph regarding tan. I guess the people who told me about Langston place were telling porkies and is up there with the rubbish you were told about Sam being back stabbed.
Without dwelling on that subject I had a good look at this financial fair play situation today and that letter that romtom posted the other night does make sense.
It's not in tan or the clubs interest at the moment to do a 100% debt to equity swap as he will be able to use the debt to equity to keep us within the financial fair play system in the next couple of years.

Sams arse lickers sticking up for him again even though he changed our identity told lies took us to the brink of going out of business and constantly interfered with the manager and squad.
Why didn't any of you speak up like you have with ridsdale and tan?? didnt hear a sam out from you lot i wonder why

Because they were in the inner circle

Bullshit.

I was never part of the 'inner circle'.

Just an inner circle wannabe

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.

Jesus carl i thought this had been done to death
not one word of what you have written is true.

Steve,

I have answered in a way that Nat the brat can understand, because by Nat the brat's take in things, he says Tan is not a liar about the debt to equity but he just hasn't got around to it yet.

And if Tan does leave and hasn't converted then maybe he hasn't lied, laughable really but that is what Natman believes.

I answered his question as a possible reason not a factual event or take on things, I thought people on here had a bit more intelligence to read what I wrote but I guess I was wrong

Regarding the truth and lies, I can state that your line about Sam's daughter living on a street called Langston in the US is a lie.

Thought I would set you straight

Lol, you and your chums are getting such a pounding you've got to resort to insulting me. Thank you, I feel every so vindicated!

listen to steve, it seems I'm making sense

Sams arse lickers sticking up for him again even though he changed our identity told lies took us to the brink of going out of business and constantly interfered with the manager and squad.
Why didn't any of you speak up like you have with ridsdale and tan?? didnt hear a sam out from you lot i wonder why

Because they were in the inner circle

Bullshit.

I was never part of the 'inner circle'.

Correct. You were still just a Glasgow Rangers fan back then

Sams arse lickers sticking up for him again even though he changed our identity told lies took us to the brink of going out of business and constantly interfered with the manager and squad.
Why didn't any of you speak up like you have with ridsdale and tan?? didnt hear a sam out from you lot i wonder why

Because they were in the inner circle

Bullshit.

I was never part of the 'inner circle'.

Just an inner circle wannabe

In fairness to Carl nat he was not around or known to most of us in the Black Friday era. I suspect he was one of thousands not close to the supposed inner circle but still suffering all the same.

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.

The purchasing of the season tickets isn't the point, it's the fact that once again someone waved a wad of cash in front of you all and you were all once again hypnotized by it and didn't question the validity of the proposal.

It's a recurring theme.

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.

Jesus carl i thought this had been done to death
not one word of what you have written is true.

Steve,

I have answered in a way that Nat the brat can understand, because by Nat the brat's take in things, he says Tan is not a liar about the debt to equity but he just hasn't got around to it yet.

And if Tan does leave and hasn't converted then maybe he hasn't lied, laughable really but that is what Natman believes.

I answered his question as a possible reason not a factual event or take on things, I thought people on here had a bit more intelligence to read what I wrote but I guess I was wrong

Regarding the truth and lies, I can state that your line about Sam's daughter living on a street called Langston in the US is a lie.

Thought I would set you straight

Carl

I was on about the part about Sam being forced out by backstabbers not the paragraph regarding tan. I guess the people who told me about Langston place were telling porkies and is up there with the rubbish you were told about Sam being back stabbed.
Without dwelling on that subject I had a good look at this financial fair play situation today and that letter that romtom posted the other night does make sense.
It's not in tan or the clubs interest at the moment to do a 100% debt to equity swap as he will be able to use the debt to equity to keep us within the financial fair play system in the next couple of years.

Steve, the FFP is something I want to have a look at and try to understand to see what impact it will have on us.

Sams arse lickers sticking up for him again even though he changed our identity told lies took us to the brink of going out of business and constantly interfered with the manager and squad.
Why didn't any of you speak up like you have with ridsdale and tan?? didnt hear a sam out from you lot i wonder why

Because they were in the inner circle

Bullshit.

I was never part of the 'inner circle'.

Just an inner circle wannabe

In fairness to Carl nat he was not around or known to most of us in the Black Friday era. I suspect he was one of thousands not close to the supposed inner circle but still suffering all the same.

Steve, I was around but weren't known to the likes of you and others, I never belonged to any circle, just travelled to the games with my family and kept myself to myself.

Despite what others claim or think, I don't go looking for a status, things have happened and I have met good people and as a result I have become a little more known if you like.

Sams arse lickers sticking up for him again even though he changed our identity told lies took us to the brink of going out of business and constantly interfered with the manager and squad.
Why didn't any of you speak up like you have with ridsdale and tan?? didnt hear a sam out from you lot i wonder why

Because they were in the inner circle

Bullshit.

I was never part of the 'inner circle'.

Correct. You were still just a Glasgow Rangers fan back then

Wow, don't tell everyone I like Rangers as well, they will never let me live it down

Sams arse lickers sticking up for him again even though he changed our identity told lies took us to the brink of going out of business and constantly interfered with the manager and squad.
Why didn't any of you speak up like you have with ridsdale and tan?? didnt hear a sam out from you lot i wonder why

Because they were in the inner circle

Bullshit.

I was never part of the 'inner circle'.

Just an inner circle wannabe

In fairness to Carl nat he was not around or known to most of us in the Black Friday era. I suspect he was one of thousands not close to the supposed inner circle but still suffering all the same.

Correct Steve

Sadly some on here relish and love trying to twists things on Carl, yet he has never done anything wrong to them, just put out stuff, which he believes is right.

Sams arse lickers sticking up for him again even though he changed our identity told lies took us to the brink of going out of business and constantly interfered with the manager and squad.
Why didn't any of you speak up like you have with ridsdale and tan?? didnt hear a sam out from you lot i wonder why

Because they were in the inner circle

Bullshit.

I was never part of the 'inner circle'.

Just an inner circle wannabe

In fairness to Carl nat he was not around or known to most of us in the Black Friday era. I suspect he was one of thousands not close to the supposed inner circle but still suffering all the same.

Correct Steve

Sadly some on here relish and love trying to twists things on Carl, yet he has never done anything wrong to them, just put out stuff, which he believes is right.

well, apart from the insults he just dished out on me and the Sam Hamman spin he puts on things without regard for the truth

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.

Jesus carl i thought this had been done to death
not one word of what you have written is true.

Steve,

I have answered in a way that Nat the brat can understand, because by Nat the brat's take in things, he says Tan is not a liar about the debt to equity but he just hasn't got around to it yet.

And if Tan does leave and hasn't converted then maybe he hasn't lied, laughable really but that is what Natman believes.

I answered his question as a possible reason not a factual event or take on things, I thought people on here had a bit more intelligence to read what I wrote but I guess I was wrong

Regarding the truth and lies, I can state that your line about Sam's daughter living on a street called Langston in the US is a lie.

Thought I would set you straight

Carl

I was on about the part about Sam being forced out by backstabbers not the paragraph regarding tan. I guess the people who told me about Langston place were telling porkies and is up there with the rubbish you were told about Sam being back stabbed.
Without dwelling on that subject I had a good look at this financial fair play situation today and that letter that romtom posted the other night does make sense.
It's not in tan or the clubs interest at the moment to do a 100% debt to equity swap as he will be able to use the debt to equity to keep us within the financial fair play system in the next couple of years.

Steve, the FFP is something I want to have a look at and try to understand to see what impact it will have on us.

so you will have a good look..................AFTER calling the man all names.............please..if your ever asked to do jury duty..get a drs paper.......guilty unless proven innocent

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.

Jesus carl i thought this had been done to death
not one word of what you have written is true.

Steve,

I have answered in a way that Nat the brat can understand, because by Nat the brat's take in things, he says Tan is not a liar about the debt to equity but he just hasn't got around to it yet.

And if Tan does leave and hasn't converted then maybe he hasn't lied, laughable really but that is what Natman believes.

I answered his question as a possible reason not a factual event or take on things, I thought people on here had a bit more intelligence to read what I wrote but I guess I was wrong

Regarding the truth and lies, I can state that your line about Sam's daughter living on a street called Langston in the US is a lie.

Thought I would set you straight

Carl

I was on about the part about Sam being forced out by backstabbers not the paragraph regarding tan. I guess the people who told me about Langston place were telling porkies and is up there with the rubbish you were told about Sam being back stabbed.
Without dwelling on that subject I had a good look at this financial fair play situation today and that letter that romtom posted the other night does make sense.
It's not in tan or the clubs interest at the moment to do a 100% debt to equity swap as he will be able to use the debt to equity to keep us within the financial fair play system in the next couple of years.

Steve, the FFP is something I want to have a look at and try to understand to see what impact it will have on us.

That's the problem possibly. As soon as we got
Relegated the club halved it's value and loses
300%: of its annual loss benefits under FFP
Besides everything and whatever his faults Tan has put in much more equity than any previous chairman and he's not even the owner.
The O.P. is a bloody joke and has no balance
Whatsoever. Your demands on Tan are equally
Rediculous and made without even understaning the situation. There were a multitude of errors last year. Management, Players , main shareholder, and the fans also, the club took a 50 million hit between everything, yes but it's Tan that has to pick up the bits. Leave the man get on with it not stamp your feet in a tantrums of I want and
must have.

Firstly, congratulations for the original post, which summed up the past 14 years quite nicely. Yes, of course some dispute the figures and I'm sure that because Tan's era is current, he has the bulk of the focus, but overall, a very succinct account.

As one poster pointed out, we won't really know the extent of any success, failure, profit or debt until Tan leaves. You could argue that CCFC had its most successful season for decades, promoted to the Premier League for the first time ever as Championship Champions.

However, the already broken promises are litmus indicators to me that we have tough times ahead at some point. The litmus has been acidic recently, i.e. red. I would prefer to tip the scales and at least neutralise, if not push it to the BLUE!

Maybe we need sponsorship by Gaviscon or Rennie, because many of us have had a belly full of it all and my heart has been burned frequently.

Firstly, congratulations for the original post, which summed up the past 14 years quite nicely. Yes, of course some dispute the figures and I'm sure that because Tan's era is current, he has the bulk of the focus, but overall, a very succinct account.

As one poster pointed out, we won't really know the extent of any success, failure, profit or debt until Tan leaves. You could argue that CCFC had its most successful season for decades, promoted to the Premier League for the first time ever as Championship Champions.

However, the already broken promises are litmus indicators to me that we have tough times ahead at some point. The litmus has been acidic recently, i.e. red. I would prefer to tip the scales and at least neutralise, if not push it to the BLUE!

Maybe we need sponsorship by Gaviscon or Rennie, because many of us have had a belly full of it all and my heart has been burned frequently.

Fair Play uve summed up Chuckles original post bang on and many are trying to avoid it.
Yes a few figures are wrong, but over all you can see where Chuckles is coming from

Theyve avoided the meat and scrapped for the bones