' Cardiff City Owners '

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.

apart from the rick wright era i cant remember any period when the club werent in the shit financially. how i wish ricky had half the money tan has as he was a brilliant and honest chairman.

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.

apart from the rick wright era i cant remember any period when the club werent in the shit financially. how i wish ricky had half the money tan has as he was a brilliant and honest chairman.

Totally agree with you there Steve

Quote (Steve Davies): "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"

Thank you, Steve. That is avery enlightening and (for me at least) explains a lot..at least in theory

One of the more considered and balanced posters on here and I always read your comments with interest

Quote (Steve Davies): "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"

Thank you, Steve. That is avery enlightening and (for me at least) explains a lot..at least in theory

One of the more considered and balanced posters on here and I always read your comments with interest

Can I have an apology for all those insults now Carl as my theory is proving to be right and your insults completely unwarranted!

Quote (Steve Davies): "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"

Thank you, Steve. That is avery enlightening and (for me at least) explains a lot..at least in theory

One of the more considered and balanced posters on here and I always read your comments with interest

Can I have an apology for all those insults now Carl as my theory is proving to be right and your insults completely unwarranted!

Nathan, my comments have nothing to do with Carl or his posts. I am simply thanking Steve for enlightening me on what MIGHT well be a valid reason for Tan's actions to date

It makes sense to me, but I'm not a financial expert or privy to Tan's innermost thoughts, so I'll have to wait and see like everyone else

Quote (Steve Davies): "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"

Thank you, Steve. That is avery enlightening and (for me at least) explains a lot..at least in theory

One of the more considered and balanced posters on here and I always read your comments with interest

Can I have an apology for all those insults now Carl as my theory is proving to be right and your insults completely unwarranted!

Nathan, my comments have nothing to do with Carl or his posts. I am simply thanking Steve for enlightening me on what MIGHT well be a valid reason for Tan's actions to date

It makes sense to me, but I'm not a financial expert or privy to Tan's innermost thoughts, so I'll have to wait and see like everyone else

sven, your post agrees with steve's, which reinforces my original opinion which was the basis of Carl's insult led rant at myself.

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'.

You came after the sam era so not on about you

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=142431

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

Too many vegans at the hog roast for me (plenty of chops though).

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'.

You came after the sam era so not on about you

Jinks, if your on about me, I never once bowed to Sam, a fact.
We were good friends and still are to this day,I argued constantly if I did not like anything Sam did,but we respected each other.
When Sam changed our badge, I disagreed and never spk to Sam for a year.

Ive never arse licked anyone
Just remember the real bad days before the year 2000

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'.

You came after the sam era so not on about you

Jinks, if your on about me, I never once bowed to Sam, a fact.
We were good friends and still are to this day,I argued constantly if I did not like anything Sam did,but we respected each other.
When Sam changed our badge, I disagreed and never spk to Sam for a year.

Ive never arse licked anyone
Just remember the real bad days before the year 2000

None of you came out in the media or anything when sam was getting us into debt , lying meddling with the team and so on.. Yes i remember the bad days long before scam came to the club

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'.

You came after the sam era so not on about you

Jinks, if your on about me, I never once bowed to Sam, a fact.
We were good friends and still are to this day,I argued constantly if I did not like anything Sam did,but we respected each other.
When Sam changed our badge, I disagreed and never spk to Sam for a year.

Ive never arse licked anyone
Just remember the real bad days before the year 2000

None of you came out in the media or anything when sam was getting us into debt , lying meddling with the team and so on.. Yes i remember the bad days long before scam came to the club

Well, they've gone quiet now Jinks

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'.

You came after the sam era so not on about you

Jinks, if your on about me, I never once bowed to Sam, a fact.
We were good friends and still are to this day,I argued constantly if I did not like anything Sam did,but we respected each other.
When Sam changed our badge, I disagreed and never spk to Sam for a year.

Ive never arse licked anyone
Just remember the real bad days before the year 2000

None of you came out in the media or anything when sam was getting us into debt , lying meddling with the team and so on.. Yes i remember the bad days long before scam came to the club

Well, they've gone quiet now Jinks

Well well, Ive written my thoughts good and bad on Sam publicly in Shattered Dreams

Wouldn't know, don't intend to read it either

Well well well, this has quietly slipped off the sticky list now the agenda has taken a battering

Quote (Steve Davies): "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"

Thank you, Steve. That is avery enlightening and (for me at least) explains a lot..at least in theory

One of the more considered and balanced posters on here and I always read your comments with interest

Can I have an apology for all those insults now Carl as my theory is proving to be right and your insults completely unwarranted!

Nathan, my comments have nothing to do with Carl or his posts. I am simply thanking Steve for enlightening me on what MIGHT well be a valid reason for Tan's actions to date

It makes sense to me, but I'm not a financial expert or privy to Tan's innermost thoughts, so I'll have to wait and see like everyone else

sven, your post agrees with steve's, which reinforces my original opinion which was the basis of Carl's insult led rant at myself.

Nope, I don't see the words "I agree" in there, Nathan. I stated that the post was "enlightening", but (like everyone else) "I'll have to wait and see"

I do enjoy Steve's posts (regardless of whether I always agree or not) and believe him to be one of the more considered and informed members on this Forum

You, however, are NOT in that category and have not for the first time twisted peoples words and/or intentions for your own narrow agenda, which does you no credit

As I've told you before, I am educated, experienced and pragmatic enough to make my own assessments and/or decisions on each individual 'issue' surrounding Vincent Tan and Cardiff City FC without falling into the trap of allowing a single ghastly issue (the rebranded colours) to influence my thoughts and/or opinions into believing EVERYTHING Tan has done has been bad for the club I love. It simply isn't true, despite what some would have you believe

If that means that I sometimes appear to "agree" with your agenda, then it is on an individual comment basis rather than a whole-hearted endorsement of (a) your agenda-filled opinions, and (b) your hypocritical damnations and ridicule of those who might have an opinion different to your own, whilst using others to (often incorrectly) prove your point

Just try to stick to the truth and fight your own self-inflicted battles, please

Well well well, this has quietly slipped off the sticky list now the agenda has taken a battering

On this subject, I don't really believe you are that naive not to know that EVERY 'thread' has a shelf-life and eventually moves on to be replaced by another (maybe more topical) one

If you can show me a 'sticky' that has been there forever, then I will issue a personal apology (mentioning YOUR name) and make THAT a 'sticky'

Not going to happen, is it??

Sadly, it was just another poorly executed attempt to "have a pop" at this Forum and its 'Mods' and yet you remain one of its most active members!

There's an irony in there somewhere!

Quote (Steve Davies): "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"

Thank you, Steve. That is avery enlightening and (for me at least) explains a lot..at least in theory

One of the more considered and balanced posters on here and I always read your comments with interest

Can I have an apology for all those insults now Carl as my theory is proving to be right and your insults completely unwarranted!

Nathan, my comments have nothing to do with Carl or his posts. I am simply thanking Steve for enlightening me on what MIGHT well be a valid reason for Tan's actions to date

It makes sense to me, but I'm not a financial expert or privy to Tan's innermost thoughts, so I'll have to wait and see like everyone else

sven, your post agrees with steve's, which reinforces my original opinion which was the basis of Carl's insult led rant at myself.

Nope, I don't see the words "I agree" in there, Nathan. I stated that the post was "enlightening", but (like everyone else) "I'll have to wait and see"

I do enjoy Steve's posts (regardless of whether I always agree or not) and believe him to be one of the more considered and informed members on this Forum

You, however, are NOT in that category and have not for the first time twisted peoples words and/or intentions for your own narrow agenda, which does you no credit

As I've told you before, I am educated, experienced and pragmatic enough to make my own assessments and/or decisions on each individual 'issue' surrounding Vincent Tan and Cardiff City FC without falling into the trap of allowing a single ghastly issue (the rebranded colours) to influence my thoughts and/or opinions into believing EVERYTHING Tan has done has been bad for the club I love. It simply isn't true, despite what some would have you believe

If that means that I sometimes appear to "agree" with your agenda, then it is on an individual comment basis rather than a whole-hearted endorsement of (a) your agenda-filled opinions, and (b) your hypocritical damnations and ridicule of those who might have an opinion different to your own, whilst using others to (often incorrectly) prove your point

Just try to stick to the truth and fight your own self-inflicted battles, please

Good points, put in an excellent manner Chris

Somebody mentioned the " Inner circle " which has changed over the last few years its known as the " Circle of trust " these days

Quote (Steve Davies): "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"

Thank you, Steve. That is avery enlightening and (for me at least) explains a lot..at least in theory

One of the more considered and balanced posters on here and I always read your comments with interest

Can I have an apology for all those insults now Carl as my theory is proving to be right and your insults completely unwarranted!

Nathan, my comments have nothing to do with Carl or his posts. I am simply thanking Steve for enlightening me on what MIGHT well be a valid reason for Tan's actions to date

It makes sense to me, but I'm not a financial expert or privy to Tan's innermost thoughts, so I'll have to wait and see like everyone else

sven, your post agrees with steve's, which reinforces my original opinion which was the basis of Carl's insult led rant at myself.

Nope, I don't see the words "I agree" in there, Nathan. I stated that the post was "enlightening", but (like everyone else) "I'll have to wait and see"

I do enjoy Steve's posts (regardless of whether I always agree or not) and believe him to be one of the more considered and informed members on this Forum

You, however, are NOT in that category and have not for the first time twisted peoples words and/or intentions for your own narrow agenda, which does you no credit

As I've told you before, I am educated, experienced and pragmatic enough to make my own assessments and/or decisions on each individual 'issue' surrounding Vincent Tan and Cardiff City FC without falling into the trap of allowing a single ghastly issue (the rebranded colours) to influence my thoughts and/or opinions into believing EVERYTHING Tan has done has been bad for the club I love. It simply isn't true, despite what some would have you believe

If that means that I sometimes appear to "agree" with your agenda, then it is on an individual comment basis rather than a whole-hearted endorsement of (a) your agenda-filled opinions, and (b) your hypocritical damnations and ridicule of those who might have an opinion different to your own, whilst using others to (often incorrectly) prove your point

Just try to stick to the truth and fight your own self-inflicted battles, please

Sven, with all respect my intention wasn't to twist your words and my apologies if you think I have done so. I thought there was some agreement from you towards that post and if I read it wrongly then I'm sorry. It was not an attempt to twist your words and if you are saying my interpretation was incorrect then it was no more than a pure misinterpretation.

However, I would much rather your measured approach in discussion that what I had earlier in this thread. The point I was trying to reinforce, albeit poorly, was that i had just been ridiculed for suggesting the very same thing in regards to Tan converting but waiting and now it seemed to me as someone else agreeing with it. However you were only acknowledging that it was an interesting point, but that approach is still miles away from the "Nat the brat" comments I was getting.

In all honesty I thought Carl, via his post, was looking to have a discussion and so I replied. What I got then was a string of abuse.

Neither do I believe that you are biased in your view of Tan. But neither am I and my post again earlier was trying to explain how I approach the debt conversion situation. it is not through a blinkered "Tan Out" as I consider many other people's posts to be. Neither did I perceive your comment to be a 'whole hearted endorsement of my agenda'. I have no agenda against this baord, or certain mods. I have an interest in Cardiff City and hate to see it, from my own and other's viewpoint, it come under constant attack by a certain influential section of the fan base who will do so on any and all bases no matter how unjustified.

If this baord operated on more of a footy forum, I think you would see a very different side from me

Well well well, this has quietly slipped off the sticky list now the agenda has taken a battering

On this subject, I don't really believe you are that naive not to know that EVERY 'thread' has a shelf-life and eventually moves on to be replaced by another (maybe more topical) one

If you can show me a 'sticky' that has been there forever, then I will issue a personal apology (mentioning YOUR name) and make THAT a 'sticky'

Not going to happen, is it??

Sadly, it was just another poorly executed attempt to "have a pop" at this Forum and its 'Mods' and yet you remain one of its most active members!

There's an irony in there somewhere!

of course I know that every thread has a shelf-life. But with out wanting to quote animal farm some threads are given more of a shelf life than others. There's been a few where once the anti-tan propaganda has been disproved they quickly come off. If the anti-tan agenda was re-inforced through a thread then I believe some mods would allow those threads to stay up a lot longer. Notice I won't tarnish all mods with the same brush as there are some like yourselves who are far more balanced in their posts, which I and others appreciate.

I hope the irony isn't lost then when I ask why other people still claim to 'support' the club whilst constantly having a pop at it?

Well well well, this has quietly slipped off the sticky list now the agenda has taken a battering

Are you really serious?
99% of topics get 24/48hrs max as a sticky,as new news or new topics are created daily.
Nat, you really are obsessed with trying to bring certain posters down and this forum down.
You really are clutching at straws and I honestly believe you do need help.

If you continue to attack every topic, Yes I will ban u permanently and thats a promise, as your not debating, your just twisting everything and derailing every topic.


Nat, I try to be fair, u get yr say, but your on a witch hunt and you really need to calm down.

Well well well, this has quietly slipped off the sticky list now the agenda has taken a battering

Are you really serious?
99% of topics get 24/48hrs max as a sticky,as new news or new topics are created daily.
Nat, you really are obsessed with trying to bring certain posters down and this forum down.
You really are clutching at straws and I honestly believe you do need help.

If you continue to attack every topic, Yes I will ban u permanently and thats a promise, as your not debating, your just twisting everything and derailing every topic.


Nat, I try to be fair, u get yr say, but your on a witch hunt and you really need to calm down.

Annis, explain why my response to carl warranted the abuse I got? I tried to debate and got a completely unjustified mouthful back.

besides, a lot of the above is a view held by many others not just myself

Well well well, this has quietly slipped off the sticky list now the agenda has taken a battering

Are you really serious?
99% of topics get 24/48hrs max as a sticky,as new news or new topics are created daily.
Nat, you really are obsessed with trying to bring certain posters down and this forum down.
You really are clutching at straws and I honestly believe you do need help.

If you continue to attack every topic, Yes I will ban u permanently and thats a promise, as your not debating, your just twisting everything and derailing every topic.


Nat, I try to be fair, u get yr say, but your on a witch hunt and you really need to calm down.

So it's ok for the likes of you and others to goad him on threads? Yes he can be a pain in the arse but let's not make it out he's the only one causing/getting into arguments.

As for derailing threads there is a long list of posters on this site that do this and don't get banned.

Well well well, this has quietly slipped off the sticky list now the agenda has taken a battering

Are you really serious?
99% of topics get 24/48hrs max as a sticky,as new news or new topics are created daily.
Nat, you really are obsessed with trying to bring certain posters down and this forum down.
You really are clutching at straws and I honestly believe you do need help.

If you continue to attack every topic, Yes I will ban u permanently and thats a promise, as your not debating, your just twisting everything and derailing every topic.


Nat, I try to be fair, u get yr say, but your on a witch hunt and you really need to calm down.

So it's ok for the likes of you and others to goad him on threads? Yes he can be a pain in the arse but let's not make it out he's the only one causing/getting into arguments.

As for derailing threads there is a long list of posters on this site that do this and don't get banned.

Ban roathy and all the jacks !

Well well well, this has quietly slipped off the sticky list now the agenda has taken a battering

Are you really serious?
99% of topics get 24/48hrs max as a sticky,as new news or new topics are created daily.
Nat, you really are obsessed with trying to bring certain posters down and this forum down.
You really are clutching at straws and I honestly believe you do need help.

If you continue to attack every topic, Yes I will ban u permanently and thats a promise, as your not debating, your just twisting everything and derailing every topic.


Nat, I try to be fair, u get yr say, but your on a witch hunt and you really need to calm down.

So it's ok for the likes of you and others to goad him on threads? Yes he can be a pain in the arse but let's not make it out he's the only one causing/getting into arguments.

As for derailing threads there is a long list of posters on this site that do this and don't get banned.

Ban roathy and all the jacks !

Mustn't ban Magic burger That is straw clutching worth a watch and beyond help. Like watching Dr Phil

Well well well, this has quietly slipped off the sticky list now the agenda has taken a battering

Are you really serious?
99% of topics get 24/48hrs max as a sticky,as new news or new topics are created daily.
Nat, you really are obsessed with trying to bring certain posters down and this forum down.
You really are clutching at straws and I honestly believe you do need help.

If you continue to attack every topic, Yes I will ban u permanently and thats a promise, as your not debating, your just twisting everything and derailing every topic.


Nat, I try to be fair, u get yr say, but your on a witch hunt and you really need to calm down.

Annis, explain why my response to carl warranted the abuse I got? I tried to debate and got a completely unjustified mouthful back.

besides, a lot of the above is a view held by many others not just myself

Nat,

I cant answer for Carl, I can only answer for myself.

Well well well, this has quietly slipped off the sticky list now the agenda has taken a battering

Are you really serious?
99% of topics get 24/48hrs max as a sticky,as new news or new topics are created daily.
Nat, you really are obsessed with trying to bring certain posters down and this forum down.
You really are clutching at straws and I honestly believe you do need help.

If you continue to attack every topic, Yes I will ban u permanently and thats a promise, as your not debating, your just twisting everything and derailing every topic.


Nat, I try to be fair, u get yr say, but your on a witch hunt and you really need to calm down.

So it's ok for the likes of you and others to goad him on threads? Yes he can be a pain in the arse but let's not make it out he's the only one causing/getting into arguments.

As for derailing threads there is a long list of posters on this site that do this and don't get banned.

I have prob let myself down a few times with Nat, but if someone 24/7 keeps going for u,I am only human.
There was a topic against him earlier, when I came in I deleted it. When I am not home, I dont have the forum/internet on my ph and never will.

If u cant see that he follows me on every topic or has a dig about me 24/7 in nearly every post, then your not being honest.

I love good debates,different opinions,different beliefs, but not attack after attack.

I want posters to disagree and agree thats the fun of a good debate

Annis Craig said earlier you wanted him to post certain topics against the club at the time of the rebrand,nukes said the other day he txt u to ok what he was going to post.How many posters do you collaborate with to post against VT and why would you do that ? Don't be offended,just wondered why you would do such a thing.

Well well well, this has quietly slipped off the sticky list now the agenda has taken a battering

Are you really serious?
99% of topics get 24/48hrs max as a sticky,as new news or new topics are created daily.
Nat, you really are obsessed with trying to bring certain posters down and this forum down.
You really are clutching at straws and I honestly believe you do need help.

If you continue to attack every topic, Yes I will ban u permanently and thats a promise, as your not debating, your just twisting everything and derailing every topic.


Nat, I try to be fair, u get yr say, but your on a witch hunt and you really need to calm down.

So it's ok for the likes of you and others to goad him on threads? Yes he can be a pain in the arse but let's not make it out he's the only one causing/getting into arguments.

As for derailing threads there is a long list of posters on this site that do this and don't get banned.

I have prob let myself down a few times with Nat, but if someone 24/7 keeps going for u,I am only human.
There was a topic against him earlier, when I came in I deleted it. When I am not home, I dont have the forum/internet on my ph and never will.

If u cant see that he follows me on every topic or has a dig about me 24/7 in nearly every post, then your not being honest.

I love good debates,different opinions,different beliefs, but not attack after attack.

I want posters to disagree and agree thats the fun of a good debate

it's just a messageboard Annis just put him on ignore if he's that annoying. It's hardly stalking someone

As I said they're are certain posters who get away with a lot worse but aren't being banned