Why Don't TG And VT Want More Than A Third Of The Club?

Just awoke from migraine induced coma and this question popped into my head?

We all know they have the money to pay off the tax and get in a twenty man accountancy team to lodge the accounts with Companies House, so why don't they? It's not as if these actions can be renegotiated like some loans, THEY HAVE TO HAPPEN AT SOME POINT.

So, is it all down to their insistance that they did not want to get over 50% of the shares and therefore be fully in control? I assume if they paid off all the debt they would by default gain further control. So why don't they want this?

Is it a case of being able to walk away at any point or was it more to do with PMG or others NOT wanting them to have full control and therefore able to make all the decisions?

Anyway, any legal bods out there aware of why they are sticking at around 36%

I'm no legal bod, but to hazard a guess I would think that they are "testing the water".
I'm sure more learned posters will answer better than me though

I'm no legal bod, but to hazard a guess I would think that they are "testing the water".
I'm sure more learned posters will answer better than me though

No offence Marc, but you still think weekly pay is the financial future.

Only joking, how's the new job going?

I'm no legal bod, but to hazard a guess I would think that they are "testing the water".
I'm sure more learned posters will answer better than me though

No offence Marc, but you still think weekly pay is the financial future.

Only joking, how's the new job going?

Jobs going good Wayne (thanks for asking)....and I stand by my statement that weekly pay is better than monthly..out of curiosity why do you think monthly is better??

I'm no legal bod, but to hazard a guess I would think that they are "testing the water".
I'm sure more learned posters will answer better than me though

No offence Marc, but you still think weekly pay is the financial future.

Only joking, how's the new job going?

Jobs going good Wayne (thanks for asking)....and I stand by my statement that weekly pay is better than monthly..out of curiosity why do you think monthly is better??

I don't think any of them are better, I just didn't know weekly pay still occurred, thought it was all monthly pay and straight into accounts.

Was your weekly pay also in a little windowed brown envelope and in cash?

This is the burning question that no-one has been able to answer. Obviously they want to get the club as cheap as possible and there is the opinion that has been said on here by Steve Davies that the malaysians could own the club for £30 million within 24 months, but my question would be why 2 years why not now ?

If the plan is to buy it outright in 2 years why would they allow ( if they are responsible ) certain bills to go unpaid and leaving us under an embargo. There must be a strategy and I believe that only the Malaysians themselves know the plan and they are going about it without giving anything away.

Keith Morgan finds the amount of the club they now own baffling also, once they took over 25% it stopped any other party involved from taking such action as placing the club in administration, but the 36.75% figure is rather random. Nothing changes until they then go over the 50% mark when they would have a limited time to exercise the ' drag on ' option in the clubs constitution.

It is pleasing that we have a chairman who has good business acumen and that we are seeing that he is actively negotiating with creditors and hopefully leading us to a firmer financial footing.

Im afraid if we dont do well this season then season ticket sales next year will fall big time which will then have a snowball affect on the club.

This is the burning question that no-one has been able to answer. Obviously they want to get the club as cheap as possible and there is the opinion that has been said on here by Steve Davies that the malaysians could own the club for £30 million within 24 months, but my question would be why 2 years why not now ?

If the plan is to buy it outright in 2 years why would they allow ( if they are responsible ) certain bills to go unpaid and leaving us under an embargo. There must be a strategy and I believe that only the Malaysians themselves know the plan and they are going about it without giving anything away.

Keith Morgan finds the amount of the club they now own baffling also, once they took over 25% it stopped any other party involved from taking such action as placing the club in administration, but the 36.75% figure is rather random. Nothing changes until they then go over the 50% mark when they would have a limited time to exercise the ' drag on ' option in the clubs constitution.

It is pleasing that we have a chairman who has good business acumen and that we are seeing that he is actively negotiating with creditors and hopefully leading us to a firmer financial footing.

I understand that the 36% came about because no current shareholders took up the opportunity of the available shares at the time so instead of having 30% of the club they ended up with the 36%.

Am I right in assuming if they are paying HMRC at the moment, they will be obtaining a further percentage of the club if others are not putting in their cash as well? I wonder if the 30% level was set so there was leeway for them to add more cash for debt and still stay below 50%

It's fine to play hardball with other shareholders but they MUST be aware that the squad must not be hindered at the same time, it's not like American football where franchises cannot drop out of the division.

Last edited by Wayne S on Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I would think the main reason at the moment is that they want to keep their shareholding lower, while they negotiate some of the outstanding liabilities.
If they were to invest more money in now to increase their shareholding, I'm sure many of the creditors would be complaining and asking for their money.
As it is now they are able to negotiate with the creditors, and possibly reduce the liabilities, or agree on a new payment schedule so that everything is in place, and the finances are looking a little less precarious.
Obviously I don't really know what their long term plan is, but I would imagine it would involve a larger shareholding. I don't think they want to rush into investing several more million pounds into the club before sorting out some of the debts (Langston included)

Am I right in assuming if they are paying HMRC at the moment, they will be obtaining a further percentage of the club if others are not putting in their cash as well?
.

I think that's something that many people seem to forget about. Any money their putting in now whether it be wages or tax bills etc won't just be lost money, it would either be as a loan, or in exchange for equity. In this case I would assume it's the former.

I'm happy to be corrected, but many seem to be slagging off PMG etc for not paying their 'share' of the debts, but any additional money being paid into the club would be as loans surely?

This is the burning question that no-one has been able to answer. Obviously they want to get the club as cheap as possible and there is the opinion that has been said on here by Steve Davies that the malaysians could own the club for £30 million within 24 months, but my question would be why 2 years why not now ?

If the plan is to buy it outright in 2 years why would they allow ( if they are responsible ) certain bills to go unpaid and leaving us under an embargo. There must be a strategy and I believe that only the Malaysians themselves know the plan and they are going about it without giving anything away.

Keith Morgan finds the amount of the club they now own baffling also, once they took over 25% it stopped any other party involved from taking such action as placing the club in administration, but the 36.75% figure is rather random. Nothing changes until they then go over the 50% mark when they would have a limited time to exercise the ' drag on ' option in the clubs constitution.

It is pleasing that we have a chairman who has good business acumen and that we are seeing that he is actively negotiating with creditors and hopefully leading us to a firmer financial footing.

I would imagine if someone offered them all their money back now they would take it and be happy never to be seen again.

Am I right in assuming if they are paying HMRC at the moment, they will be obtaining a further percentage of the club if others are not putting in their cash as well?
.

I think that's something that many people seem to forget about. Any money their putting in now whether it be wages or tax bills etc won't just be lost money, it would either be as a loan, or in exchange for equity. In this case I would assume it's the former.

I'm happy to be corrected, but many seem to be slagging off PMG etc for not paying their 'share' of the debts, but any additional money being paid into the club would be as loans surely?

That's all we need further owners having a debt over the club.

Maybe the current shareholders didn't want to sell? Or at least, not at the price the Malaysians were prepared to pay.

Am I right in assuming if they are paying HMRC at the moment, they will be obtaining a further percentage of the club if others are not putting in their cash as well?
.

I think that's something that many people seem to forget about. Any money their putting in now whether it be wages or tax bills etc won't just be lost money, it would either be as a loan, or in exchange for equity. In this case I would assume it's the former.

I'm happy to be corrected, but many seem to be slagging off PMG etc for not paying their 'share' of the debts, but any additional money being paid into the club would be as loans surely?

That's all we need further owners having a debt over the club.

Owain is right though, the additional funds coming in will be loans.
He's also right about them not putting too much in until they've cleared up the creditor position and reduced it by as much as possible - especially as concerns Langston and to a lesser extent (as they have some security thus less to lose) PMG. I wouldn't be suprised to see both taking something of a 'hit' in the medium term to get some money back.

VT & TG's % stake is in Cardiff C is linked with Tan's attempt to gain a betting licence in Malaysia (IMO).

It appears Tan has had to cancel plans to open up telephone betting and limited Toto outlets because his betting arm Ascot Sports has failed to secure a betting licence in Malaysia due to public uproar from the majority Muslim population, so VT has decided to bide his time until conditions are more agreeable before attempting to launch his football betting service again.

However, it is not hard to see if we had made it to the Premiership through the play-offs and the licence had been granted we would have made a fantastic marketing product for Ascot Sports and I believe we would have seen millions ploughed into our club. This is because the joint value of legal and illegal betting in Malaysia is estimated at around £200m p/a and having a team in the EPL would be marketing gold.

Those plans are now on hold which may explain why the investment in CCFC is now slower and why the Malaysians are only holding onto a 30% stake for now. Of course if that licence is issued in the near future things could change very quickly.

Those plans are now on hold which may explain why the investment in CCFC is now slower and why the Malaysians are only holding onto a 30% stake for now. Of course if that licence is issued in the near future things could change very quickly.

Even quicker if we get to the premier. As I have been saying they need us in the premier for their investment to work.

I heard stories about the Malaysians other businesses would gain by buying us. I heard about their shopping outlets business but could not see the link to a football club being benficial for that. Since I heard about VTs online gambling empire then it became quite feasible why us.

Not only do they need us in the premier but they need us to stay there. I get the impression Cardiff City will become a tool for the Malaysians to help their other exploits. Saying that to every £10 they make we will get £1 because they will need us to remain in the premier. Of course though we need ot get there first.

Just awoke from migraine induced coma and this question popped into my head?

We all know they have the money to pay off the tax and get in a twenty man accountancy team to lodge the accounts with Companies House, so why don't they? It's not as if these actions can be renegotiated like some loans, THEY HAVE TO HAPPEN AT SOME POINT.

So, is it all down to their insistance that they did not want to get over 50% of the shares and therefore be fully in control? I assume if they paid off all the debt they would by default gain further control. So why don't they want this?

Is it a case of being able to walk away at any point or was it more to do with PMG or others NOT wanting them to have full control and therefore able to make all the decisions?

Anyway, any legal bods out there aware of why they are sticking at around 36%

Possibly because in a debt-laden club such as CCFC, debt is more valuable than equity - indeed, if the equity has any value at all!