' Cardiff City Owners '

funny over past couple of years our debt varies depending on agenda set! at time of Sam (langston) demise they were owed over 24m so people IKN said at time, and that doesn't include other debts, so there are very bad accountants on this board ?

I will fully judge Tan when he leaves. The others left us in shit. For all we know when Tan goes we could be ok, we could not.....we'll have to wait.

Thing that gets me about Sam was his "the debt leaves with me" and the fact we were hours from going under and he refused to sign us over until he got a bit more cash for his brother.

Sam rebranded us, even talk of merging us with Swansea. He lent money to get us promoted, and it wasnt his. The stadium could not go ahead with Sam in charge, council said no. We had a firesale of epic proportions and HMRC wanting us. He brought in the Riddler.

BUT

He got me believing we could be great, he started my dreams about CCFC and what we could achieve.

Craig, I don't want to turn this into an Hammam thread but at least you seem to agree that Langston is not Hammam.

I'm not arguing anything else in his post as he's spot on but to say the club only owed out £28m prior to tans arrival is madness

We were being wound up for gods sake we owed £4m to the tax man let alone the other debts

I think annis is saying what was owed to Sam and is not talking about overall club debt which was higher.

People on here questioned the legitimacy of the amount.

thats an interesting last line about hatred clouding judgements. Very accurate concerning our current owner to.

Steve Davies
Wrote
"Tan saved the club from liquidation that day but eventually killed the club off as most people knew it."


SADLY SPOT ON Steve

I'm not arguing anything else in his post as he's spot on but to say the club only owed out £28m prior to tans arrival is madness

We were being wound up for gods sake we owed £4m to the tax man let alone the other debts

I think annis is saying what was owed to Sam and is not talking about overall club debt which was higher.

Correct Steve, We owed Sam/Langston £24 mill when he left, Tan paid Sam £15 mill in total

......... during the start of the Hammam era, I was a teenager who didn't care too much for off the field matters, so therefore do not know as much as I do regarding Tan, to be honest.

Then you article will be biased.

A pretty decent effort on our situation but if you're not going to do research into the parts that you have no knowledge of its going to attract contradiction.

Debt alone under Sam went up around 1,000%. Under Tan it has risen about 400%.

During Tans tenure we are talking bigger monetary amounts but the returns are also massive compared to when Sam was accruing debt.

In my eyes they've both been a pain in the arse.

I will fully judge Tan when he leaves. The others left us in shit. For all we know when Tan goes we could be ok, we could not.....we'll have to wait.

Thing that gets me about Sam was his "the debt leaves with me" and the fact we were hours from going under and he refused to sign us over until he got a bit more cash for his brother.

Sam rebranded us, even talk of merging us with Swansea. He lent money to get us promoted, and it wasnt his. The stadium could not go ahead with Sam in charge, council said no. We had a firesale of epic proportions and HMRC wanting us. He brought in the Riddler.

BUT

He got me believing we could be great, he started my dreams about CCFC and what we could achieve.

Craig, I don't want to turn this into an Hammam thread but at least you seem to agree that Langston is not Hammam.

The water is so muddy regarding that its not worth trying to debate it. If i remember during our court case the judge seemed to think it either was Sam or he was at least close to "Langston"

I seem to remember his brother coming up somewhere regarding langston but I may have got muddled up there.

One thing wrong here when tan steeped the debt was already far in excess of £28m

The accounts shaped a debt of £34m to Langston including naming rights wtc

This without the moeny owed to Michael issacs, PMG and other board members that had been bankrolling the club

Season ricket money had already been spent so tan had to bankroll entire first season at cost of roughly £35m

That's takes u to nearly £100m after first year of him being year before he even proposed the rebrand

Don't let that cloud yor judgement mind you

Now this is where it gets interesting.

I was argued with by many experts on here that the debt to Langston was £15m and up to £9m of naming rights which were not payable by the club but by the stadium name buyer so apparently the debt was only £15m to Langston plus interest which was not due until 2016.

So people can't have the penny and the bun.

Annis and I used to argue that Langston were owed £35m+ because Langston believed with the interest being added and the defaults in agreed payments and settlements meant that loan note 1 was 'back in play' and not the 2nd loan note that was agreed in or around 2006.

PMG's debts were being paid back by Premier Seat money.

So I don't think Chuckles is far wrong with his accounting of events.

Thought provoking read.

But don't let the hatred for Hammam cloud your judgement on what has been written.

Carl there are no experts on here and as one of the subjects on the board is about copy rights could you not use my penny and the bun metaphor without my express permission please

One thing wrong here when tan steeped the debt was already far in excess of £28m

The accounts shaped a debt of £34m to Langston including naming rights wtc

This without the moeny owed to Michael issacs, PMG and other board members that had been bankrolling the club

Season ricket money had already been spent so tan had to bankroll entire first season at cost of roughly £35m

That's takes u to nearly £100m after first year of him being year before he even proposed the rebrand

Don't let that cloud yor judgement mind you

Now this is where it gets interesting.

I was argued with by many experts on here that the debt to Langston was £15m and up to £9m of naming rights which were not payable by the club but by the stadium name buyer so apparently the debt was only £15m to Langston plus interest which was not due until 2016.

So people can't have the penny and the bun.

Annis and I used to argue that Langston were owed £35m+ because Langston believed with the interest being added and the defaults in agreed payments and settlements meant that loan note 1 was 'back in play' and not the 2nd loan note that was agreed in or around 2006.

PMG's debts were being paid back by Premier Seat money.

So I don't think Chuckles is far wrong with his accounting of events.

Thought provoking read.

But don't let the hatred for Hammam cloud your judgement on what has been written.[/quote

Where have I put any hatred for sam hamman merely correcting the fact that at the time riddler left the debt the club owed out was far in excess of the £28m that's the op had written

Looks like your sticking up for sam again Carl when I haven't even mentioned him so whose got the judgement problem certainly isn't me

Steve, what a great line.


"Tan saved the club from liquidation that day but eventually killed the club off as most people knew it."

If we're going to talk about increasing of debt. Hamman taking us from £1.5 million of debt to £35 million of debt so practically increased our debt 20 fold whist Tan only doubled it so who is the more reckless with the money? At least with Tan most of the debt occurred will leave us with assets which we can sell. Either way we've gone from one bad owner to the next and there is no excuses for any of them.

One thing wrong here when tan steeped the debt was already far in excess of £28m

The accounts shaped a debt of £34m to Langston including naming rights wtc

This without the moeny owed to Michael issacs, PMG and other board members that had been bankrolling the club

Season ricket money had already been spent so tan had to bankroll entire first season at cost of roughly £35m

That's takes u to nearly £100m after first year of him being year before he even proposed the rebrand

Don't let that cloud yor judgement mind you

Now this is where it gets interesting.

I was argued with by many experts on here that the debt to Langston was £15m and up to £9m of naming rights which were not payable by the club but by the stadium name buyer so apparently the debt was only £15m to Langston plus interest which was not due until 2016.

So people can't have the penny and the bun.

Annis and I used to argue that Langston were owed £35m+ because Langston believed with the interest being added and the defaults in agreed payments and settlements meant that loan note 1 was 'back in play' and not the 2nd loan note that was agreed in or around 2006.

PMG's debts were being paid back by Premier Seat money.

So I don't think Chuckles is far wrong with his accounting of events.

Thought provoking read.

But don't let the hatred for Hammam cloud your judgement on what has been written.[/quote

Where have I put any hatred for sam hamman merely correcting the fact that at the time riddler left the debt the club owed out was far in excess of the £28m that's the op had written

Looks like your sticking up for sam again Carl when I haven't even mentioned him so whose got the judgement problem certainly isn't me

It was meant for everyone reading and not you personally Smakerz

I am merely trying to point out that certain folk claimed the debt to Langston was nowhere near £34m and the reasons why it weren't.

I will fully judge Tan when he leaves. The others left us in shit. For all we know when Tan goes we could be ok, we could not.....we'll have to wait.

Thing that gets me about Sam was his "the debt leaves with me" and the fact we were hours from going under and he refused to sign us over until he got a bit more cash for his brother.

Sam rebranded us, even talk of merging us with Swansea. He lent money to get us promoted, and it wasnt his. The stadium could not go ahead with Sam in charge, council said no. We had a firesale of epic proportions and HMRC wanting us. He brought in the Riddler.

BUT

He got me believing we could be great, he started my dreams about CCFC and what we could achieve.

Craig, I don't want to turn this into an Hammam thread but at least you seem to agree that Langston is not Hammam.

The water is so muddy regarding that its not worth trying to debate it. If i remember during our court case the judge seemed to think it either was Sam or he was at least close to "Langston"

I seem to remember his brother coming up somewhere regarding langston but I may have got muddled up there.

It was the judge in his summing up Craig who said that if the case went to the high court and there was full disclosure that he believed that Sam and hammam and Langston would be one and the same
Sam had a company called rudgewick holdings and he lived in rudgewick street in London. His daughter lived in Langston place in New York so it's up to people to decide if that's a coincidence.

One thing wrong here when tan steeped the debt was already far in excess of £28m

The accounts shaped a debt of £34m to Langston including naming rights wtc

This without the moeny owed to Michael issacs, PMG and other board members that had been bankrolling the club

Season ricket money had already been spent so tan had to bankroll entire first season at cost of roughly £35m

That's takes u to nearly £100m after first year of him being year before he even proposed the rebrand

Don't let that cloud yor judgement mind you

Now this is where it gets interesting.

I was argued with by many experts on here that the debt to Langston was £15m and up to £9m of naming rights which were not payable by the club but by the stadium name buyer so apparently the debt was only £15m to Langston plus interest which was not due until 2016.

So people can't have the penny and the bun.

Annis and I used to argue that Langston were owed £35m+ because Langston believed with the interest being added and the defaults in agreed payments and settlements meant that loan note 1 was 'back in play' and not the 2nd loan note that was agreed in or around 2006.

PMG's debts were being paid back by Premier Seat money.

So I don't think Chuckles is far wrong with his accounting of events.

Thought provoking read.

But don't let the hatred for Hammam cloud your judgement on what has been written.

Carl there are no experts on here and as one of the subjects on the board is about copy rights could you not use my penny and the bun metaphor without my express permission please

I knew you would be along soon Steve so deliberately put it in there

And bang on queue

One thing wrong here when tan steeped the debt was already far in excess of £28m

When Tan took over we were £28 mill approx in debt.

you can't have it both ways annis you were saying we owed Sam 35m plus only a few months ago before it was settled,when tan stepped in we had stadium debts ,tax debts and other debts 50 million plus

But weren't the other £7m owed to others?

I mean, 28m to Sam and 7m to others such as PMG etc

Try adding at least a 2 in front of that 7

One thing wrong here when tan steeped the debt was already far in excess of £28m

The accounts shaped a debt of £34m to Langston including naming rights wtc

This without the moeny owed to Michael issacs, PMG and other board members that had been bankrolling the club

Season ricket money had already been spent so tan had to bankroll entire first season at cost of roughly £35m

That's takes u to nearly £100m after first year of him being year before he even proposed the rebrand

Don't let that cloud yor judgement mind you

Now this is where it gets interesting.

I was argued with by many experts on here that the debt to Langston was £15m and up to £9m of naming rights which were not payable by the club but by the stadium name buyer so apparently the debt was only £15m to Langston plus interest which was not due until 2016.

So people can't have the penny and the bun.

Annis and I used to argue that Langston were owed £35m+ because Langston believed with the interest being added and the defaults in agreed payments and settlements meant that loan note 1 was 'back in play' and not the 2nd loan note that was agreed in or around 2006.

PMG's debts were being paid back by Premier Seat money.

So I don't think Chuckles is far wrong with his accounting of events.

Thought provoking read.

But don't let the hatred for Hammam cloud your judgement on what has been written.[/quote

Where have I put any hatred for sam hamman merely correcting the fact that at the time riddler left the debt the club owed out was far in excess of the £28m that's the op had written

Looks like your sticking up for sam again Carl when I haven't even mentioned him so whose got the judgement problem certainly isn't me

It was meant for everyone reading and not you personally Smakerz

I am merely trying to point out that certain folk claimed the debt to Langston was nowhere near £34m and the reasons why it weren't.

Lot of argument on here at the time but it was always in the accounts at around £34m as when accounting it has to be an honest reflection of the debt we all know Langston were never getting that much ever but that's what it was roughly down for

I'd guess it was eventually settled for more like £15m

I will fully judge Tan when he leaves. The others left us in shit. For all we know when Tan goes we could be ok, we could not.....we'll have to wait.

Thing that gets me about Sam was his "the debt leaves with me" and the fact we were hours from going under and he refused to sign us over until he got a bit more cash for his brother.

Sam rebranded us, even talk of merging us with Swansea. He lent money to get us promoted, and it wasnt his. The stadium could not go ahead with Sam in charge, council said no. We had a firesale of epic proportions and HMRC wanting us. He brought in the Riddler.

BUT

He got me believing we could be great, he started my dreams about CCFC and what we could achieve.

Craig, I don't want to turn this into an Hammam thread but at least you seem to agree that Langston is not Hammam.

The water is so muddy regarding that its not worth trying to debate it. If i remember during our court case the judge seemed to think it either was Sam or he was at least close to "Langston"

I seem to remember his brother coming up somewhere regarding langston but I may have got muddled up there.

It was the judge in his summing up Craig who said that if the case went to the high court and there was full disclosure that he believed that Sam and hammam and Langston would be one and the same
Sam had a company called rudgewick holdings and he lived in rudgewick street in London. His daughter lived in Langston place in New York so it's up to people to decide if that's a coincidence.

I think the summary judge's words were he believed that Hammam was the controlling mind of Langston.

Steve Davies
Wrote
"Tan saved the club from liquidation that day but eventually killed the club off as most people knew it."


SADLY SPOT ON Steve

Would we be better off dead?

I will fully judge Tan when he leaves. The others left us in shit. For all we know when Tan goes we could be ok, we could not.....we'll have to wait.

Thing that gets me about Sam was his "the debt leaves with me" and the fact we were hours from going under and he refused to sign us over until he got a bit more cash for his brother.

Sam rebranded us, even talk of merging us with Swansea. He lent money to get us promoted, and it wasnt his. The stadium could not go ahead with Sam in charge, council said no. We had a firesale of epic proportions and HMRC wanting us. He brought in the Riddler.

BUT

He got me believing we could be great, he started my dreams about CCFC and what we could achieve.

Craig, I don't want to turn this into an Hammam thread but at least you seem to agree that Langston is not Hammam.

The water is so muddy regarding that its not worth trying to debate it. If i remember during our court case the judge seemed to think it either was Sam or he was at least close to "Langston"

I seem to remember his brother coming up somewhere regarding langston but I may have got muddled up there.

It was the judge in his summing up Craig who said that if the case went to the high court and there was full disclosure that he believed that Sam and hammam and Langston would be one and the same
Sam had a company called rudgewick holdings and he lived in rudgewick street in London. His daughter lived in Langston place in New York so it's up to people to decide if that's a coincidence.

I think the summary judge's words were he believed that Hammam was the controlling mind of Langston.

I still ain't 100% sure but what makes me believe it was hammann money is cos he had an interest in it after he had left why would anyone forced out of the club have an interest in what the club owed out if it wasn't anything to do with them?

Steve Davies
Wrote
"Tan saved the club from liquidation that day but eventually killed the club off as most people knew it."


SADLY SPOT ON Steve

Would we be better off dead?

....as in, liquidated. As that seemed the only option if VT hadn't stepped in - like him or loathe him, that seems to be a fact.

I will fully judge Tan when he leaves. The others left us in shit. For all we know when Tan goes we could be ok, we could not.....we'll have to wait.

Thing that gets me about Sam was his "the debt leaves with me" and the fact we were hours from going under and he refused to sign us over until he got a bit more cash for his brother.

Sam rebranded us, even talk of merging us with Swansea. He lent money to get us promoted, and it wasnt his. The stadium could not go ahead with Sam in charge, council said no. We had a firesale of epic proportions and HMRC wanting us. He brought in the Riddler.

BUT

He got me believing we could be great, he started my dreams about CCFC and what we could achieve.

Craig, I don't want to turn this into an Hammam thread but at least you seem to agree that Langston is not Hammam.

langston to all intent and purposes was sam

Stopped reading after I got to the figures quoted for the debt when Sam left and when Ridsdale left. They are shamefully inaccurate.

Why destroy the credibility of an article by putting in figures which are rubbish ? Especially when a quick check for anyone who has the accounts can easily prove otherwise ?

What is the point in this ? everyone knows that Sam and Ridsdale both left the club on the edge of oblivion. Is this article trying to shift all the blame off them and onto Tan.

Total debt as at May 2007 £37m (1st accounts after sam left) - NOT £20m
May 2008 £43m
May 2009 £69m (this was the point where the Malays got involved)
May 2010 £63m

Don't forget that at May 2007 we had no stadium, and the council WOULD NOT release the land for it whilst Sam was in charge, at least after Ridsdale left we had a £60m stadium, however we had sold virtually any player worth a decent fee.

Only differences between the 3 are that Tan has at least bought a significant number of shares and can cover the money he's lending the club. Still not clear who was behind Langston and Ridsdale, well he didn'yt put in a penny, had a load of free shares and £1m+ in fees.

In terms of the club's identity, Ridsdale knew not to touch this, Sam tried and got scared off, and Tan, well he stupidly changed it and is now a leper because of it.

THESE TWO MAIN POINTS ARE WHAT REALLY WORRY ME AND ARE WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING IN THE YEAR 2014,YET TANS FOLLOWERS TOTALLY IGNORE THESE FACTS AND THEY ARE WHAT REALLY MATTER, AS THEY ARE THE PRESENT & THE FUTURE OF OUR CLUB.

Steve Davies wrote
"Tan saved the club from liquidation that day but eventually killed the club off as most people knew it."

Barry Chuckle wrote
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.

The fan base is not split. There are just a group of people sulking because they can't get their own way. Out of every 25,000 Cardiff fans who attended matches last season, 24,000 just turn up and watch the game, then go home and get on with their lives. They are normal people with normal priorities - they probably prefer the team in blue but in the big scheme of their lives, it is not a big enough issue to cause them any concern. Neither is the clubs finances, as long as it doesn't affect their own income they don't really care.

Sometimes you can't get your own way, no matter how much you are in the right and no matter how much you want things to be different. That's life. And many people on here need to get one.

Totally agree most people just want to see a winning Cardiff team

Most of last seasons attendance just wanted to see the opposition....... How many of the 24,000 who didn't care this year about the colour have renewed their season tickets this year?? And it's far more than 1million sulking as bb58 puts it!!!

Steve Davies
Wrote
"Tan saved the club from liquidation that day but eventually killed the club off as most people knew it."


SADLY SPOT ON Steve

Would we be better off dead?

....as in, liquidated. As that seemed the only option if VT hadn't stepped in - like him or loathe him, that seems to be a fact.

Think time will tell on that mate

Tan has divided fans no doubt but the club is still alive which it wouldn't have been had he not stepped in I think most will agree on that

Will VT go back to blue I don't think so, will he leave the club in a better state than when he joined when he eventually leaves again time will tell on that

Will we turn blue once he leaves I think everyone says yes but in all honestly I'm not sure we will although I'm sure everyone would love that to be the case

Very interesting times ahead I think if we go back up this year tan will sell up and cut his losses effectively leavingn the club in premier league and debt free, who takes over is the question and would they return us to blue?

Very interestin times ahead rollercoaster as always with Cardiff city football club

That's why we all love it so much lol

Stopped reading after I got to the figures quoted for the debt when Sam left and when Ridsdale left. They are shamefully inaccurate.

Why destroy the credibility of an article by putting in figures which are rubbish ? Especially when a quick check for anyone who has the accounts can easily prove otherwise ?

What is the point in this ? everyone knows that Sam and Ridsdale both left the club on the edge of oblivion. Is this article trying to shift all the blame off them and onto Tan.

Total debt as at May 2007 £37m (1st accounts after sam left) - NOT £20m
May 2008 £43m
May 2009 £69m (this was the point where the Malays got involved)
May 2010 £63m

Don't forget that at May 2007 we had no stadium, and the council WOULD NOT release the land for it whilst Sam was in charge, at least after Ridsdale left we had a £60m stadium, however we had sold virtually any player worth a decent fee.

Only differences between the 3 are that Tan has at least bought a significant number of shares and can cover the money he's lending the club. Still not clear who was behind Langston and Ridsdale, well he didn'yt put in a penny, had a load of free shares and £1m+ in fees.

In terms of the club's identity, Ridsdale knew not to touch this, Sam tried and got scared off, and Tan, well he stupidly changed it and is now a leper because of it.

Without checking I wasn't far away then estimated at around £50-60m upon their arrival

Stopped reading after I got to the figures quoted for the debt when Sam left and when Ridsdale left. They are shamefully inaccurate.

Why destroy the credibility of an article by putting in figures which are rubbish ? Especially when a quick check for anyone who has the accounts can easily prove otherwise ?

What is the point in this ? everyone knows that Sam and Ridsdale both left the club on the edge of oblivion. Is this article trying to shift all the blame off them and onto Tan.

Total debt as at May 2007 £37m (1st accounts after sam left) - NOT £20m
May 2008 £43m
May 2009 £69m (this was the point where the Malays got involved)
May 2010 £63m

Don't forget that at May 2007 we had no stadium, and the council WOULD NOT release the land for it whilst Sam was in charge, at least after Ridsdale left we had a £60m stadium, however we had sold virtually any player worth a decent fee.

Only differences between the 3 are that Tan has at least bought a significant number of shares and can cover the money he's lending the club. Still not clear who was behind Langston and Ridsdale, well he didn'yt put in a penny, had a load of free shares and £1m+ in fees.

In terms of the club's identity, Ridsdale knew not to touch this, Sam tried and got scared off, and Tan, well he stupidly changed it and is now a leper because of it.

Without checking I wasn't far away then estimated at around £50-60m upon their arrival

Very good post by the way lawnmower

Total debt as at May 2007 £37m (1st accounts after sam left) - NOT £20m

Where have I said it was £20million at any point in time?

Am I right in thinking that the figure you are giving is including the 9million "debt" of Naming rights of the CCS, which were never taken up anyway?

Which would take it to £28million, which is about where most people have suggested it to be the case on here... (24-28 mil).

THESE TWO MAIN POINTS ARE WHAT REALLY WORRY ME AND ARE WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING IN THE YEAR 2014,YET TANS FOLLOWERS TOTALLY IGNORE THESE FACTS AND THEY ARE WHAT REALLY MATTER, AS THEY ARE THE PRESENT & THE FUTURE OF OUR CLUB.

Steve Davies wrote
"Tan saved the club from liquidation that day but eventually killed the club off as most people knew it."

Barry Chuckle wrote
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.