PMG - A Joint Statement From CCSC and CCST

the key question here is who is holding the cards with regards to this deal from the cardiff city side of things ?

if PMG have no desire whatsoever for administration and want out then this statement could be viewed either as totally irrelevant or a step on the road

or , I think rather more extreme ..and probably without any foundation , that its a kick in the teeth to PMG

at the end of the day PMG are the major creditors and have this charge on the player sales ?

sludge

paul has wanted out for a long time and has had ample opportunity to sit back and watch the club go into administration.
he has continued to back the club financially over the last few months and without the risk of constantly repeating myself who do the pmg knockers think paid the first 1.2 million tax to the hmrc in february.
i have no problem with a statement being put out but it should have enveloped the whole board and shareholders not an individual who has baled the club out time after time in the last few years

the key question here is who is holding the cards with regards to this deal from the cardiff city side of things ?

if PMG have no desire whatsoever for administration and want out then this statement could be viewed either as totally irrelevant or a step on the road

or , I think rather more extreme ..and probably without any foundation , that its a kick in the teeth to PMG

at the end of the day PMG are the major creditors and have this charge on the player sales ?

sludge

paul has wanted out for a long time and has had ample opportunity to sit back and watch the club go into administration.
he has continued to back the club financially over the last few months and without the risk of constantly repeating myself who do the pmg knockers think paid the first 1.2 million tax to the hmrc in february.
i have no problem with a statement being put out but it should have enveloped the whole board and shareholders not an individual who has baled the club out time after time in the last few years

Assuming that's true, Steve, what do you think the motivation for that statement was? The Trust claim they've spoken to Borley, Malaysians, have highly accurate information - surely they would have known what you just posted and issued the statement regardless?

the key question here is who is holding the cards with regards to this deal from the cardiff city side of things ?

if PMG have no desire whatsoever for administration and want out then this statement could be viewed either as totally irrelevant or a step on the road

or , I think rather more extreme ..and probably without any foundation , that its a kick in the teeth to PMG

at the end of the day PMG are the major creditors and have this charge on the player sales ?

sludge

paul has wanted out for a long time and has had ample opportunity to sit back and watch the club go into administration.
he has continued to back the club financially over the last few months and without the risk of constantly repeating myself who do the pmg knockers think paid the first 1.2 million tax to the hmrc in february.
i have no problem with a statement being put out but it should have enveloped the whole board and shareholders not an individual who has baled the club out time after time in the last few years

Assuming that's true, Steve, what do you think the motivation for that statement was? The Trust claim they've spoken to Borley, Malaysians, have highly accurate information - surely they would have known what you just posted and issued the statement regardless?

was the clarification released by the trust or just an individual on mikes board because im sceptical about the speaking to malaysians and steve borley part.
i have never heard steve say a bad word or criticise paul guy in any way shape or form and has constantly said without the support of pmg the club would have folded by now.
so i cant believe that steve would have given his blessing to any document that was tellin pmg how well they have done out of the football club

Firstly, I don't understand why people think that PMG wouldn't prefer Admin. They are secured creditors which puts them first in the queue to get paid and it's conceivable that they could recover more from going into Admin than they would by agreeing with the Malaysian proposals, especially if the Malaysians are proposing to negotiate down the amount that PMG will be repaid. Today's statement makes perfect sense in that context.

Secondly, how can this statement be construed as undermining PMG's efforts to get rid of Ridsdale? As the largest shareholder and with plenty of Guy's associates and friends also holding shares, they have had them power to remove him whenever they like.

Thirdly, I don't understand why many people still seem to regard PMG as benevolent friends of Cardiff City. If they were, wouldn't they have used the £1.8m raised from the sale of the hotel land to settle the tax bill instead of it ending up back in PMG's coffers? Wouldn't they have donated a percentage of the profits they have made to avoid us going into court last week on a wing and a prayer? Don't think for one minute that PMG would ever have got involved to such an extent in Cardiff City if they weren't motivated by the millions of pounds of profit they have made from the stadia (Ninian Park, new Athletics, CCS) and retail park developments. They have profited massively from their opportunistic involvement with our football club (didn't they raise £17m from the sale of the retail units alone?) and now's the time for them to remember that they have a responsibility to us even if it costs them for once.

The clarification made on ccmb was as follows :-

"Bob,

To clarify a few points. Despite recent claims on the various messageboards, a deal with the Malaysians is far from done.

The details quoted in our joint statement were gleaned from several sources and we have also been in direct contact with the Malaysians, Steve Borley, etc. We wouldn't have gone to press with this statement if we weren't 100% sure of its accuracy.

The Malaysians have indeed made a formal offer, much of which will involve the purchase of shares to make them the largest shareholders in Cardiff CIty. There are a number of hurdles and conditions attached though, which whilst not insurmountable, are unlikley to be agreed overnight. Claims that things will be done and dusted by the weekend are we believe far fetched, but in our current plight time is indeed of the essence.

Ridsdale is now no more than a fly in the ointment - the Malaysians don't want him and whether he goes quietly or tries to claim his full compensation through the courts is neither here nor there. The real issue is that the Malaysians will not become major shareholders and saddle themselves with £40m of debt. In a couple of weeks the club will be in Admin and they could pick the club up for a lot less.

The whole deal hinges on the Malaysians coming to a deal with the many creditors. For unsecured creditors, it's fairly straightforward - if the club goes into Admin they will get far less (if anything) of what they are owed. We understand that a large proportion of the smaller creditors have already shown a willingness to negotiate - whether that's in the form of reducing what's owed or increasing payment terms is unknown.

The real crux of the matter here is the only secured creditors - Messrs Guy and Hall - PMG. For them, coming to an agreement with the Malaysians may reduce their pay off by more than what they think they can recover via the Admin route. In other words, they can make or break any deal and are the key players in all this.

CCSC and the Trust felt the time was right to exert some pressure on PMG. As local businessmen, they need to do the right thing by Cardiff City, as any other form of action would tarnish their reputation in South Wales. With Cardiff City only a couple of weeks from oblivion and a chance to be saved, we felt it was worth reminding them of this."

Thames Valley Bluebird later replies to the poster with "Thanks Mark" if that helps identify the person?

I actually loved the "tarnish reputation" claim - I can only assume people genuinely believe CCFC going into administration would magically cause contracts to dry up for PMG!

the full thread is at :-

http://www.ccmb.co.uk/fudforum/index.ph ... bb8ce9a2d1

[quote="steve davies
was the clarification released by the trust or just an individual on mikes board because im sceptical about the speaking to malaysians and steve borley part.
i have never heard steve say a bad word or criticise paul guy in any way shape or form and has constantly said without the support of pmg the club would have folded by now.
so i cant believe that steve would have given his blessing to any document that was tellin pmg how well they have done out of the football club[/quote]

The clarification was from Doctor Pop and he is one of the guys involved in drafting the statement.

Firstly, I don't understand why people think that PMG wouldn't prefer Admin. They are secured creditors which puts them first in the queue to get paid and it's conceivable that they could recover more from going into Admin than they would by agreeing with the Malaysian proposals, especially if the Malaysians are proposing to negotiate down the amount that PMG will be repaid. Today's statement makes perfect sense in that context.

Yes, the debt is secured. The shares aren't.

They get an offer for the shares close to a figure they'd accept - almost certainly less than paid for - then it would be more than they'd get if the club went into admin. Simples. It's all in the mathematics. Malaysians may well offer a payment plan for the debt which repays close to or indeed all - add in share price, could easily make more than simply having the debt covered after admin.

Secondly, how can this statement be construed as undermining PMG's efforts to get rid of Ridsdale? As the largest shareholder and with plenty of Guy's associates and friends also holding shares, they have had them power to remove him whenever they like.

Without necessarily having the leverage to avoid paying a full settlement. Ridders referred before to this club as being the one where he'd rehab his image - taking it to the brink gives more leverage to remove him.

Thirdly, I don't understand why many people still seem to regard PMG as benevolent friends of Cardiff City. If they were, wouldn't they have used the £1.8m raised from the sale of the hotel land to settle the tax bill instead of it ending up back in PMG's coffers? Wouldn't they have donated a percentage of the profits they have made to avoid us going into court last week on a wing and a prayer? Don't think for one minute that PMG would ever have got involved to such an extent in Cardiff City if they weren't motivated by the millions of pounds of profit they have made from the stadia (Ninian Park, new Athletics, CCS) and retail park developments. They have profited massively from their opportunistic involvement with our football club (didn't they raise £17m from the sale of the retail units alone?) and now's the time for them to remember that they have a responsibility to us even if it costs them for once.

And what about the time to remind Ridsdale that he has a responsibility to us, given the money he's taken out of the club and the extreme lack of money invested?

Or is that too simple a point for some?

There's been zero - repeat zero - claim from people who have been credible enough with their information in the past that PMG are in any way, shape or form a problem to this deal.

The only people claiming it are the trust/CCSC. And given the number of people there who believe it's all a Taffia/egger plot...

Assuming that's true, Steve, what do you think the motivation for that statement was? The Trust claim they've spoken to Borley, Malaysians, have highly accurate information - surely they would have known what you just posted and issued the statement regardless?

There is a genuine concern that PMG might opt for Admin if they consider it more financially worthwhile than what the Malaysians are proposing. Incidentally, as I understand it, they are not proposing to buy PMG's shareholding but new shares and their investment depends on major creditors like PMG accepting a reduction in what they will receive.

Assuming that's true, Steve, what do you think the motivation for that statement was? The Trust claim they've spoken to Borley, Malaysians, have highly accurate information - surely they would have known what you just posted and issued the statement regardless?

There is a genuine concern that PMG might opt for Admin if they consider it more financially worthwhile than what the Malaysians are proposing. Incidentally, as I understand it, they are not proposing to buy PMG's shareholding but new shares and their investment depends on major creditors like PMG accepting a reduction in what they will receive.

Well, again, that's your understanding. Nobody knows what the true deal is other than those involved.

PMG, as is obvious and doesn't need a statement to be made, have profited a lot from the overall development. If the ONLY money that had an interest in was the loan and shares, I'd tend to agree about admin. Given the additional monies they are making, it's then a question of would they be prepared to quibble and go through admin when realistically we're taking about overall profit being less.

Assuming that's true, Steve, what do you think the motivation for that statement was? The Trust claim they've spoken to Borley, Malaysians, have highly accurate information - surely they would have known what you just posted and issued the statement regardless?

There is a genuine concern that PMG might opt for Admin if they consider it more financially worthwhile than what the Malaysians are proposing. Incidentally, as I understand it, they are not proposing to buy PMG's shareholding but new shares and their investment depends on major creditors like PMG accepting a reduction in what they will receive.

Well, again, that's your understanding. Nobody knows what the true deal is other than those involved.

PMG, as is obvious and doesn't need a statement to be made, have profited a lot from the overall development. If the ONLY money that had an interest in was the loan and shares, I'd tend to agree about admin. Given the additional monies they are making, it's then a question of would they be prepared to quibble and go through admin when realistically we're taking about overall profit being less.

OK let's forget the "as I understand it" bit - that's what I've been told by people who've been in contact with some of the parties involved.

OK let's forget the "as I understand it" bit - that's what I've been told by people who've been in contact with some of the parties involved.

And that differs from what I've been told by people in contact with some of the parties involved. What I've heard indicates that the posts on this mb are more accurate.

Time will tell.

Firstly, I don't understand why people think that PMG wouldn't prefer Admin. They are secured creditors which puts them first in the queue to get paid and it's conceivable that they could recover more from going into Admin than they would by agreeing with the Malaysian proposals, especially if the Malaysians are proposing to negotiate down the amount that PMG will be repaid. Today's statement makes perfect sense in that context.

Secondly, how can this statement be construed as undermining PMG's efforts to get rid of Ridsdale? As the largest shareholder and with plenty of Guy's associates and friends also holding shares, they have had them power to remove him whenever they like.

Thirdly, I don't understand why many people still seem to regard PMG as benevolent friends of Cardiff City. If they were, wouldn't they have used the £1.8m raised from the sale of the hotel land to settle the tax bill instead of it ending up back in PMG's coffers? Wouldn't they have donated a percentage of the profits they have made to avoid us going into court last week on a wing and a prayer? Don't think for one minute that PMG would ever have got involved to such an extent in Cardiff City if they weren't motivated by the millions of pounds of profit they have made from the stadia (Ninian Park, new Athletics, CCS) and retail park developments. They have profited massively from their opportunistic involvement with our football club (didn't they raise £17m from the sale of the retail units alone?) and now's the time for them to remember that they have a responsibility to us even if it costs them for once.

dreamlike

pmg paid the 1.2 million instalment to the revenue in february.
who did you actually think paid it then bearing in mind the malaysians invested the extra 300k to pay the clubs wage bill.
i can assure you paul guy does not want admin for the club.

dreamlike

pmg paid the 1.2 million instalment to the revenue in february.
who did you actually think paid it then bearing in mind the malaysians invested the extra 300k to pay the clubs wage bill.
i can assure you paul guy does not want admin for the club.

Steve, I don't think he wants Admin either but I could foresee a situation where he does the Maths and finds it's preferable if the Malaysians aren't offering to buy his shares and really want want to play hardball. Let's hope that what they're proposing is acceptable to all parties (including Ridsdale) and we can move on to a more secure future. Wouldn't it be great to get back to arguing about whether Rae or Darcy should be playing centre mid?

pmg would have to take around 10p-20p in the £ for there debt if we went in to admin in a cva ,why would they want admin unless they want the whole club? pmg said at the egm they are happy to walk away and they know they wouldnt get all there money back this was said stright from paul guy mouth! i was there,for the trust to say this statment today i think is not called for ,new people in = the loan money back for pmg ,admin = afraction of monies being payed back its a no brainer get rid of risdale and get new investment in to pay there own loans back

exactly wez

paul has known what the offer was going to be for weeks now
why no joint statement asking the chairman to do the right thing by the club if his presence is going to jepoardise the investment.
we are at the brink of investment or bust and suddenly the man who paid the first portion of tax to the hmrc is being cast as the potential villian while the second largest shareholder and person responsible for this whole mess who has only taken from the club gets off scot free

Bang on Steve, a HUGE Gaff by the Trust releasing that statement, but thats what you get when you sail ships without sailors but attempt to do it with unexperienced skivys.

dreamlike

pmg paid the 1.2 million instalment to the revenue in february.
who did you actually think paid it then bearing in mind the malaysians invested the extra 300k to pay the clubs wage bill.
i can assure you paul guy does not want admin for the club.

Steve, I don't think he wants Admin either but I could foresee a situation where he does the Maths and finds it's preferable if the Malaysians aren't offering to buy his shares and really want want to play hardball. Let's hope that what they're proposing is acceptable to all parties (including Ridsdale) and we can move on to a more secure future. Wouldn't it be great to get back to arguing about whether Rae or Darcy should be playing centre mid?

That suggestion about admin is only applicable if you believe the statement issued by the Trust; one designed to frighten fans, make PMG look like bad guys.

The Trust, I'm sure, have their own motivation for that.

It's a no lose for the Trust - things fall through, "well, we warned you", things go well, "our statement made things happen".

pmg would have to take around 10p-20p in the £ for there debt if we went in to admin in a cva ,why would they want admin unless they want the whole club? pmg said at the egm they are happy to walk away and they know they wouldnt get all there money back this was said stright from paul guy mouth! i was there,for the trust to say this statment today i think is not called for ,new people in = the loan money back for pmg ,admin = afraction of monies being payed back its a no brainer get rid of risdale and get new investment in to pay there own loans back

exactly wez

paul has known what the offer was going to be for weeks now
why no joint statement asking the chairman to do the right thing by the club if his presence is going to jepoardise the investment.
we are at the brink of investment or bust and suddenly the man who paid the first portion of tax to the hmrc is being cast as the potential villian while the second largest shareholder and person responsible for this whole mess who has only taken from the club gets off scot free

Bang on Steve, a HUGE Gaff by the Trust releasing that statement, but thats what you get when you sail ships without sailors but attempt to do it with unexperienced skivys.

It was a joint statement by the trust AND the supporters club and vince alm has commented on the situation on HTV news about an hour ago

he said that whilst PMG had been instrumental in the stadium project they have also benefitted from involvement and a such they will be looked upon by many cardiff city fans ( not all of course..nobody can sopeak for all the fans ) as having a duty to ensure the football club moves forward

of course recognising as well they have helped the cl;ub out in many ways too

dreamlike

pmg paid the 1.2 million instalment to the revenue in february.
who did you actually think paid it then bearing in mind the malaysians invested the extra 300k to pay the clubs wage bill.
i can assure you paul guy does not want admin for the club.

Steve, I don't think he wants Admin either but I could foresee a situation where he does the Maths and finds it's preferable if the Malaysians aren't offering to buy his shares and really want want to play hardball. Let's hope that what they're proposing is acceptable to all parties (including Ridsdale) and we can move on to a more secure future. Wouldn't it be great to get back to arguing about whether Rae or Darcy should be playing centre mid?

That suggestion about admin is only applicable if you believe the statement issued by the Trust; one designed to frighten fans, make PMG look like bad guys.

The Trust, I'm sure, have their own motivation for that.

It's a no lose for the Trust - things fall through, "well, we warned you", things go well, "our statement made things happen".

OK. I'll bite. What do you believe and what should the joint statement have said?

It was a joint statement by the trust AND the supporters club and vince alm has commented on the situation on HTV news about an hour ago

he said that whilst PMG had been instrumental in the stadium project they have also benefitted from involvement and a such they will be looked upon by many cardiff city fans ( not all of course..nobody can sopeak for all the fans ) as having a duty to ensure the football club moves forward

of course recognising as well they have helped the cl;ub out in many ways too

Yes, Sludge, we know, couched in nice language.

What do you think the underlying intent was, given that it was clarified on CCMB that the intent of the statement was to pressurise PMG?

When do you think the Trust ( oh and CCSC, which is another toothless group ) will issue such a statement reminding everyone about Ridsdale's achievements and duty?

Or is it just harsh and cruel to ask about the obvious double standards?

Written by an adult in short trousers. We all know where we are and don't need you to state the blindingly obvious in such pious terms. Do you really think that what you have written in any way advances the cause? All you have done is highlight how far removed and how hopelessly ineffective the Trust is.

These people are business men. There is always a sub text and agenda. We will end up where we end up and witless rhetoric from CCSC have no no influence on the process. Time to grow up and live in the real world.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
If I may be allowed a view before I am torn apart by some of the 'Heavies' who use this board to stamp on any opinions differing from their own, I would like to gently point out that , only the other day the trust was accused of being too gentlemanly in its statements as opposed to the steady roar of violent protest heard here. So now the Trust and associates are being too heavy handed in stating the desperate position clearly and pointing a finger at the usual suspects.

When a board starts being used to slag off individuals with whom you disagree then it merely becomes a line of nodding heads led by people who have their own personal agenda. This can be a great board if and when it ceases to be a home for spite and nonsense. Those who wish to attack this message --- please form a very long line.

The Malaysians are not idiots. The trust message will not tell them anything they don't know.


CAL

Cal, of course you are allowed your view and if its different then the 'heavies' as you call them wont stamp on it and I am offended that you say that.

Secondly you say there is a steady roar for violent protests on here, again I find that offensive too, each and every protest that has eminated from this board has been peaceful.

Please Cal do not come here sniping it is not welcome but your opinions are.

Firstly, I don't understand why people think that PMG wouldn't prefer Admin. They are secured creditors which puts them first in the queue to get paid and it's conceivable that they could recover more from going into Admin than they would by agreeing with the Malaysian proposals, especially if the Malaysians are proposing to negotiate down the amount that PMG will be repaid. Today's statement makes perfect sense in that context.

Secondly, how can this statement be construed as undermining PMG's efforts to get rid of Ridsdale? As the largest shareholder and with plenty of Guy's associates and friends also holding shares, they have had them power to remove him whenever they like.

Thirdly, I don't understand why many people still seem to regard PMG as benevolent friends of Cardiff City. If they were, wouldn't they have used the £1.8m raised from the sale of the hotel land to settle the tax bill instead of it ending up back in PMG's coffers? Wouldn't they have donated a percentage of the profits they have made to avoid us going into court last week on a wing and a prayer? Don't think for one minute that PMG would ever have got involved to such an extent in Cardiff City if they weren't motivated by the millions of pounds of profit they have made from the stadia (Ninian Park, new Athletics, CCS) and retail park developments. They have profited massively from their opportunistic involvement with our football club (didn't they raise £17m from the sale of the retail units alone?) and now's the time for them to remember that they have a responsibility to us even if it costs them for once.

dreamlike

pmg paid the 1.2 million instalment to the revenue in february.
who did you actually think paid it then bearing in mind the malaysians invested the extra 300k to pay the clubs wage bill.
i can assure you paul guy does not want admin for the club.

Steve I got ridiculed for saying that Borley and Guy paid the tax in Feb.

It was a joint statement by the trust AND the supporters club and vince alm has commented on the situation on HTV news about an hour ago

he said that whilst PMG had been instrumental in the stadium project they have also benefitted from involvement and a such they will be looked upon by many cardiff city fans ( not all of course..nobody can sopeak for all the fans ) as having a duty to ensure the football club moves forward

of course recognising as well they have helped the cl;ub out in many ways too

Yes, Sludge, we know, couched in nice language.

What do you think the underlying intent was, given that it was clarified on CCMB that the intent of the statement was to pressurise PMG?

When do you think the Trust ( oh and CCSC, which is another toothless group ) will issue such a statement reminding everyone about Ridsdale's achievements and duty?

Or is it just harsh and cruel to ask about the obvious double standards?

There is probably a long discussion that can take place as to whether the trust should (or could) have put more pressure on Ridsdale.

But despite the fact that there seem to be some differing opinons as to exactly what is going on, the one thing tht does seem clear is rhat Ridsdale is now a busted flush.

He is down and out

What is the point of kicking him now??

No double standards there just common sense surely.

There is probabaly a long discussion that can take place as to whether the trust should ( or could 0 have put more pressure on Ridsdale.

But despite the fact that there seem to be some differing opinons as to exactly what is going on, the one thing tht does seem clear is rhat Ridsdale is now a busted flush.

He is down and out

What is the point of kicking him now??

No double standards there just common sense surely.

Hardly.

Common sense is not, when a big business decision is coming up, writing a statement, let's be honest, slating PMG when they may well have been the decision makers! Especially when the claim is made that statement is based upon FACT having spoken to Malaysians, Borley et al!

The Trust ( oops, and CCSC ) statement, is pretty much a veiled attack on PMG. One which seems at odds with basically everything most people "in the know" have heard. Which means it's questionable how much the Trust actually know.

Ridsdale may well be down and out. Hardly secret. The statement however, smacks of "we know everything, it's really those evil PMG people behind, pulling the strings, those damn eggers".

And again, the Trust have NEVER. EVER. issued a statement against Ridsdale, reminding him of his duty in all the Trusts days.

But still, that might mean they will be prevented from having dialogue with the club, right?

There is probabaly a long discussion that can take place as to whether the trust should ( or could 0 have put more pressure on Ridsdale.

But despite the fact that there seem to be some differing opinons as to exactly what is going on, the one thing tht does seem clear is rhat Ridsdale is now a busted flush.

He is down and out

What is the point of kicking him now??

No double standards there just common sense surely.

Hardly.

Common sense is not, when a big business decision is coming up, writing a statement, let's be honest, slating PMG when they may well have been the decision makers! Especially when the claim is made that statement is based upon FACT having spoken to Malaysians, Borley et al!

The Trust ( oops, and CCSC ) statement, is pretty much a veiled attack on PMG. One which seems at odds with basically everything most people "in the know" have heard. Which means it's questionable how much the Trust actually know.

Ridsdale may well be down and out. Hardly secret. The statement however, smacks of "we know everything, it's really those evil PMG people behind, pulling the strings, those damn eggers".

And again, the Trust have NEVER. EVER. issued a statement against Ridsdale, reminding him of his duty in all the Trusts days.

But still, that might mean they will be prevented from having dialogue with the club, right?

Nerd, no reply to my question for you above?

There is probabaly a long discussion that can take place as to whether the trust should ( or could 0 have put more pressure on Ridsdale.

But despite the fact that there seem to be some differing opinons as to exactly what is going on, the one thing tht does seem clear is rhat Ridsdale is now a busted flush.

He is down and out

What is the point of kicking him now??

No double standards there just common sense surely.

Hardly.

Common sense is not, when a big business decision is coming up, writing a statement, let's be honest, slating PMG when they may well have been the decision makers! Especially when the claim is made that statement is based upon FACT having spoken to Malaysians, Borley et al!

The Trust ( oops, and CCSC ) statement, is pretty much a veiled attack on PMG. One which seems at odds with basically everything most people "in the know" have heard. Which means it's questionable how much the Trust actually know.

Ridsdale may well be down and out. Hardly secret. The statement however, smacks of "we know everything, it's really those evil PMG people behind, pulling the strings, those damn eggers".

And again, the Trust have NEVER. EVER. issued a statement against Ridsdale, reminding him of his duty in all the Trusts days.

But still, that might mean they will be prevented from having dialogue with the club, right?

The other week Steve Borley and PMG were being slated on this board for supporting PR in the EGM.

From what Annis said on this board I believe than SB would have voted against Mr Ridsdale if PMG had as well. If he had voted against on his own his position on the board would surely have been untenable.

Opinion not fact I know.

But as the major shareholders haven't PMG alway pulled the strings? Wouiln't PR have gone long ago if they had withdrawn their backing

There is probabaly a long discussion that can take place as to whether the trust should ( or could 0 have put more pressure on Ridsdale.

But despite the fact that there seem to be some differing opinons as to exactly what is going on, the one thing tht does seem clear is rhat Ridsdale is now a busted flush.

He is down and out

What is the point of kicking him now??

No double standards there just common sense surely.

Hardly.

Common sense is not, when a big business decision is coming up, writing a statement, let's be honest, slating PMG when they may well have been the decision makers! Especially when the claim is made that statement is based upon FACT having spoken to Malaysians, Borley et al!

The Trust ( oops, and CCSC ) statement, is pretty much a veiled attack on PMG. One which seems at odds with basically everything most people "in the know" have heard. Which means it's questionable how much the Trust actually know.

Ridsdale may well be down and out. Hardly secret. The statement however, smacks of "we know everything, it's really those evil PMG people behind, pulling the strings, those damn eggers".

And again, the Trust have NEVER. EVER. issued a statement against Ridsdale, reminding him of his duty in all the Trusts days.

Nerd, no reply to my question for you above?

dreamlike

i thought the stament should have been aimed at the chairman all board members and shareholders who i believe equally have a duty to this club and its future over the next two days.
to single out the people who have been stumping up the cash to keep the club afloat over the last two months is criminal and shows a lack of real knowledge of what is really happening behind the scenes

has anyone ever read weaveworld by clive barker ?

dreamlike

pmg paid the 1.2 million instalment to the revenue in february.
who did you actually think paid it then bearing in mind the malaysians invested the extra 300k to pay the clubs wage bill.
i can assure you paul guy does not want admin for the club.[/quote]

Steve I got ridiculed for saying that Borley and Guy paid the tax in Feb.[/quote]


carl
i have asked the question all day on this board and mikes without any replies.
you and i both know who paid the tax
perhaps people think it was left under the chairmans pillow by the tooth fairy.

dreamlike

pmg paid the 1.2 million instalment to the revenue in february.
who did you actually think paid it then bearing in mind the malaysians invested the extra 300k to pay the clubs wage bill.
i can assure you paul guy does not want admin for the club.

Steve I got ridiculed for saying that Borley and Guy paid the tax in Feb.[/quote]


carl
i have asked the question all day on this board and mikes without any replies.
you and i both know who paid the tax
perhaps people think it was left under the chairmans pillow by the tooth fairy.[/quote]


Steve

I think most if not all posters are gratefrul for the information you and Carl have provided.


I don't doubt that you are correct and PMG paid the tax in February.

Presumably thought they didn't give the club the money as a gift.

And I presume as well that negotiations were going on with the Malaysians but still had a way to go. They would have needed to buy more time with the revenue or put the club into Admin.

That being so surely paying the tax was in their interests as well as the club.

Elwood

There's no problem when interests co-incide.

Malaysians suddenly love Cardiff City? Especially businessmen? I've no doubt they can see the money they can make through marketing in Malaysia and the Far East.

if people are prepared to stump up the cash, then why shouldn't they be allowed to profit? it seems people expect football clubs to be run as charities.

Why is why it makes questioning PMG's motives baffling, when Ridsdale's have been worse - he's invested nothing!

Why kick Ridsdale when he's down? Well, he needs to be removed or there's no deal. Malaysians won't invest with him around. That is an incentive to reming him of his duty; PMG don't even become a factor unless Ridders agrees to leave.

the difference between Ridders and PMG is that, unless mistaken, Trust officials haven't had unofficial meetings with PMG.

dreamlike

pmg paid the 1.2 million instalment to the revenue in february.
who did you actually think paid it then bearing in mind the malaysians invested the extra 300k to pay the clubs wage bill.
i can assure you paul guy does not want admin for the club.

Steve I got ridiculed for saying that Borley and Guy paid the tax in Feb.

carl
i have asked the question all day on this board and mikes without any replies.
you and i both know who paid the tax
perhaps people think it was left under the chairmans pillow by the tooth fairy.[/quote]


Steve

I think most if not all posters are gratefrul for the information you and Carl have provided.


I don't doubt that you are correct and PMG paid the tax in February.

Presumably thought they didn't give the club the money as a gift.

And I presume as well that negotiations were going on with the Malaysians but still had a way to go. They would have needed to buy more time with the revenue or put the club into Admin.

That being so surely paying the tax was in their interests as well as the club.

Elwood

i agree with you elwood
so why a statement today warning about putting the club into admin aimed at pmg
if there is a perceived threat of putting the club into admin why would paul waste 1.2 million of his money on tax that could be down the swanny 30 days later.
there has and never will be an intention to go into admin unless the investment fails.
i had no problem with a statement reminding everybody how important the next few days are but to isolate paul guy was wrong.