Why the debt has gone up under Tan.

A forum for all things Cardiff City

Why the debt has gone up under Tan.

Postby maccydee » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:59 am

I think this article explains some of it quite well. Riddler blamed Sam. Tan blames Riddler. What is absolutely easy to see is that when Tan took over any incomings were spent for the next 12-18 months. Easy to see why the debt went up in the short term. Of course there have been mistakes made by Tan. As there were under Sam and under Riddler.

Someone at some point had to make this club sustainable. That’s what is happening now. Other clubs aren’t doing that and will be docked points next year.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foo ... an-8306378
maccydee
 
Posts: 9457
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Carterton, Oxfordshire

Why the debt has gone up under Tan.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Login or Register to remove this ad.

Re: Why the debt has gone up under Tan.

Postby maccydee » Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:03 am

maccydee
 
Posts: 9457
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Carterton, Oxfordshire

Re: Why the debt has gone up under Tan.

Postby maccydee » Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:07 am

And this one

New ground key to Cardiff's promotion, says Peter Ridsdale

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/22187828
maccydee
 
Posts: 9457
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Carterton, Oxfordshire

Re: Why the debt has gone up under Tan.

Postby skiprat » Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:38 pm

So tan owns the club and the money is owed to himself???.
skiprat
 
Posts: 1842
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:31 pm

Re: Why the debt has gone up under Tan.

Postby Sven » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:05 pm

skiprat wrote:So tan owns the club and the money is owed to himself???.

That's how I read it; and so long as he honours that, it could be argued the debt (or the bulk of it) is his and not the club's?

I'm sure others with great knowledge of finance (or an agenda) might say differently?
"Recreational offence". In short, if you're the kind of person who spends valuable time looking to be offended, it's offensive.
User avatar
Sven
Moderator
 
Posts: 22684
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:14 pm

Re: Why the debt has gone up under Tan.

Postby Bakedalasker » Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:54 pm

These articles are 8 years old and things have change a lot since then.

The Ridsdale article is typical Ridsdale bias and the same can be said about Tans article. Ridsdale strength for me is he knew his football and with the help of Dave Jones made us a secure Championship football club. Ridsdale weakness was he was not a money man and had no money. He had to sell for us to survive. So with that disadvantage he did well in a way to keep us challenging in the Championship.

Lets go back a bit before we return to the present. It common knowledge we were saved by Sam Hamman while we waited for someone to close our doors in the Dungeon League. Our rise up the leagues to knocking o the Premier was a dream. Our Nemesis of not having any more money woke us up. This led to the takeover of the Malaysians after a brief ownership of PMG.

Now its claimed in the Tan article he came is and basically paid off the "secured" loans to become our owner. He first became 51% share owner giving him the key to the door and later bought more shares to secure his ownership. So while we are here lets bring in the Langston debt. That debt was "unsecured" and is the reason while it has not been paid to date. Lets just explain what an Unsecured debt it. If you give someone £100 without a contract then they are not immediately obliged to pay you. You would have to go through the court process, win judgement then they will be obliged to pay you. if when you handed over the £100 that someone gave you their car then you have in a way secured your £100. The Langston loan was secured against nothing, hence why it is unsecured, and for them to get their money they would have to go to court of which they have not. This is why that debt is still around.

Now when Tan came in it is believed our debt was around £50m. This I believe includes the unsecured Langston debt. Since then we have had 2 Premier seasons with its riches but yet we find ourselves now fighting a relegation battle to League one with a squad that is worth pennies compared to what he inherited. I'm not sure what the debt is now and I don't care because its all owed to him. Personally I believe its all his own fault for allowing it to generate because his ownership is turning out to be a f%^&ing disaster.
User avatar
Bakedalasker
 
Posts: 17337
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Derby

Re: Why the debt has gone up under Tan.

Postby maccydee » Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:26 am

Bakedalasker wrote:These articles are 8 years old and things have change a lot since then.

The Ridsdale article is typical Ridsdale bias and the same can be said about Tans article. Ridsdale strength for me is he knew his football and with the help of Dave Jones made us a secure Championship football club. Ridsdale weakness was he was not a money man and had no money. He had to sell for us to survive. So with that disadvantage he did well in a way to keep us challenging in the Championship.

Lets go back a bit before we return to the present. It common knowledge we were saved by Sam Hamman while we waited for someone to close our doors in the Dungeon League. Our rise up the leagues to knocking o the Premier was a dream. Our Nemesis of not having any more money woke us up. This led to the takeover of the Malaysians after a brief ownership of PMG.

Now its claimed in the Tan article he came is and basically paid off the "secured" loans to become our owner. He first became 51% share owner giving him the key to the door and later bought more shares to secure his ownership. So while we are here lets bring in the Langston debt. That debt was "unsecured" and is the reason while it has not been paid to date. Lets just explain what an Unsecured debt it. If you give someone £100 without a contract then they are not immediately obliged to pay you. You would have to go through the court process, win judgement then they will be obliged to pay you. if when you handed over the £100 that someone gave you their car then you have in a way secured your £100. The Langston loan was secured against nothing, hence why it is unsecured, and for them to get their money they would have to go to court of which they have not. This is why that debt is still around.

Now when Tan came in it is believed our debt was around £50m. This I believe includes the unsecured Langston debt. Since then we have had 2 Premier seasons with its riches but yet we find ourselves now fighting a relegation battle to League one with a squad that is worth pennies compared to what he inherited. I'm not sure what the debt is now and I don't care because its all owed to him. Personally I believe its all his own fault for allowing it to generate because his ownership is turning out to be a f%^&ing disaster.


So many contradictions in one post.

Langstone (Sam) has been paid off. Did Sam actually put any money in? His loans were against the club paid by the 600k a year wage he took from the club.

Granted he had to have equity to enable that and get us going.
maccydee
 
Posts: 9457
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Carterton, Oxfordshire

Re: Why the debt has gone up under Tan.

Postby Sven » Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:31 am

Bakedalasker wrote:These articles are 8 years old and things have change a lot since then.

The Ridsdale article is typical Ridsdale bias and the same can be said about Tans article. Ridsdale strength for me is he knew his football and with the help of Dave Jones made us a secure Championship football club. Ridsdale weakness was he was not a money man and had no money. He had to sell for us to survive. So with that disadvantage he did well in a way to keep us challenging in the Championship.

Lets go back a bit before we return to the present. It common knowledge we were saved by Sam Hamman while we waited for someone to close our doors in the Dungeon League. Our rise up the leagues to knocking o the Premier was a dream. Our Nemesis of not having any more money woke us up. This led to the takeover of the Malaysians after a brief ownership of PMG.

Now its claimed in the Tan article he came is and basically paid off the "secured" loans to become our owner. He first became 51% share owner giving him the key to the door and later bought more shares to secure his ownership. So while we are here lets bring in the Langston debt. That debt was "unsecured" and is the reason while it has not been paid to date. Lets just explain what an Unsecured debt it. If you give someone £100 without a contract then they are not immediately obliged to pay you. You would have to go through the court process, win judgement then they will be obliged to pay you. if when you handed over the £100 that someone gave you their car then you have in a way secured your £100. The Langston loan was secured against nothing, hence why it is unsecured, and for them to get their money they would have to go to court of which they have not. This is why that debt is still around.

Now when Tan came in it is believed our debt was around £50m. This I believe includes the unsecured Langston debt. Since then we have had 2 Premier seasons with its riches but yet we find ourselves now fighting a relegation battle to League one with a squad that is worth pennies compared to what he inherited. I'm not sure what the debt is now and I don't care because its all owed to him. Personally I believe its all his own fault for allowing it to generate because his ownership is turning out to be a f%^&ing disaster.

That's the bit I believe in reference to my post above...! :thumbup: :ayatollah:
"Recreational offence". In short, if you're the kind of person who spends valuable time looking to be offended, it's offensive.
User avatar
Sven
Moderator
 
Posts: 22684
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:14 pm

Re: Why the debt has gone up under Tan.

Postby maccydee » Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:32 am

Sven wrote:
skiprat wrote:So tan owns the club and the money is owed to himself???.

That's how I read it; and so long as he honours that, it could be argued the debt (or the bulk of it) is his and not the club's?

I'm sure others with great knowledge of finance (or an agenda) might say differently?


I mean Keith has stated that numerous times.

It’s quite literally chalk and cheese compared to where we were before.

No matter what the Sam apologists say (and I love Sam and what he did for us) the difference in our club now vs when he left is like comparing Microsoft with Commodore.
maccydee
 
Posts: 9457
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Carterton, Oxfordshire

Re: Why the debt has gone up under Tan.

Postby Bakedalasker » Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:34 am

maccydee wrote:
Bakedalasker wrote:These articles are 8 years old and things have change a lot since then.

The Ridsdale article is typical Ridsdale bias and the same can be said about Tans article. Ridsdale strength for me is he knew his football and with the help of Dave Jones made us a secure Championship football club. Ridsdale weakness was he was not a money man and had no money. He had to sell for us to survive. So with that disadvantage he did well in a way to keep us challenging in the Championship.

Lets go back a bit before we return to the present. It common knowledge we were saved by Sam Hamman while we waited for someone to close our doors in the Dungeon League. Our rise up the leagues to knocking o the Premier was a dream. Our Nemesis of not having any more money woke us up. This led to the takeover of the Malaysians after a brief ownership of PMG.

Now its claimed in the Tan article he came is and basically paid off the "secured" loans to become our owner. He first became 51% share owner giving him the key to the door and later bought more shares to secure his ownership. So while we are here lets bring in the Langston debt. That debt was "unsecured" and is the reason while it has not been paid to date. Lets just explain what an Unsecured debt it. If you give someone £100 without a contract then they are not immediately obliged to pay you. You would have to go through the court process, win judgement then they will be obliged to pay you. if when you handed over the £100 that someone gave you their car then you have in a way secured your £100. The Langston loan was secured against nothing, hence why it is unsecured, and for them to get their money they would have to go to court of which they have not. This is why that debt is still around.

Now when Tan came in it is believed our debt was around £50m. This I believe includes the unsecured Langston debt. Since then we have had 2 Premier seasons with its riches but yet we find ourselves now fighting a relegation battle to League one with a squad that is worth pennies compared to what he inherited. I'm not sure what the debt is now and I don't care because its all owed to him. Personally I believe its all his own fault for allowing it to generate because his ownership is turning out to be a f%^&ing disaster.


So many contradictions in one post.

Langstone (Sam) has been paid off. Did Sam actually put any money in? His loans were against the club paid by the 600k a year wage he took from the club.

Granted he had to have equity to enable that and get us going.


What don't you understand about unsecured loans. Langston/Sam debt was not secured against the club at all. The debt was £30m so divide that £600k means he was here for over 30 years. Right.

And yes the club does still owe Sam/Langston.
User avatar
Bakedalasker
 
Posts: 17337
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Derby

Re: Why the debt has gone up under Tan.

Postby maccydee » Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:38 am

Bakedalasker wrote:
maccydee wrote:
Bakedalasker wrote:These articles are 8 years old and things have change a lot since then.

The Ridsdale article is typical Ridsdale bias and the same can be said about Tans article. Ridsdale strength for me is he knew his football and with the help of Dave Jones made us a secure Championship football club. Ridsdale weakness was he was not a money man and had no money. He had to sell for us to survive. So with that disadvantage he did well in a way to keep us challenging in the Championship.

Lets go back a bit before we return to the present. It common knowledge we were saved by Sam Hamman while we waited for someone to close our doors in the Dungeon League. Our rise up the leagues to knocking o the Premier was a dream. Our Nemesis of not having any more money woke us up. This led to the takeover of the Malaysians after a brief ownership of PMG.

Now its claimed in the Tan article he came is and basically paid off the "secured" loans to become our owner. He first became 51% share owner giving him the key to the door and later bought more shares to secure his ownership. So while we are here lets bring in the Langston debt. That debt was "unsecured" and is the reason while it has not been paid to date. Lets just explain what an Unsecured debt it. If you give someone £100 without a contract then they are not immediately obliged to pay you. You would have to go through the court process, win judgement then they will be obliged to pay you. if when you handed over the £100 that someone gave you their car then you have in a way secured your £100. The Langston loan was secured against nothing, hence why it is unsecured, and for them to get their money they would have to go to court of which they have not. This is why that debt is still around.

Now when Tan came in it is believed our debt was around £50m. This I believe includes the unsecured Langston debt. Since then we have had 2 Premier seasons with its riches but yet we find ourselves now fighting a relegation battle to League one with a squad that is worth pennies compared to what he inherited. I'm not sure what the debt is now and I don't care because its all owed to him. Personally I believe its all his own fault for allowing it to generate because his ownership is turning out to be a f%^&ing disaster.


So many contradictions in one post.

Langstone (Sam) has been paid off. Did Sam actually put any money in? His loans were against the club paid by the 600k a year wage he took from the club.

Granted he had to have equity to enable that and get us going.


What don't you understand about unsecured loans. Langston/Sam debt was not secured against the club at all. The debt was £30m so divide that £600k means he was here for over 30 years. Right.

And yes the club does still owe Sam/Langston.


Explain that Ian?

Tan paid off all the secured and unsecured debts. There’s a case about the presidency outstanding.

Sam was paid a lot more than he actually put in. If he is still after money from our club it contradicts anything said that he loves our club.
maccydee
 
Posts: 9457
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Carterton, Oxfordshire

Re: Why the debt has gone up under Tan.

Postby Bakedalasker » Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:56 am

maccydee wrote:
Bakedalasker wrote:
maccydee wrote:
Bakedalasker wrote:These articles are 8 years old and things have change a lot since then.

The Ridsdale article is typical Ridsdale bias and the same can be said about Tans article. Ridsdale strength for me is he knew his football and with the help of Dave Jones made us a secure Championship football club. Ridsdale weakness was he was not a money man and had no money. He had to sell for us to survive. So with that disadvantage he did well in a way to keep us challenging in the Championship.

Lets go back a bit before we return to the present. It common knowledge we were saved by Sam Hamman while we waited for someone to close our doors in the Dungeon League. Our rise up the leagues to knocking o the Premier was a dream. Our Nemesis of not having any more money woke us up. This led to the takeover of the Malaysians after a brief ownership of PMG.

Now its claimed in the Tan article he came is and basically paid off the "secured" loans to become our owner. He first became 51% share owner giving him the key to the door and later bought more shares to secure his ownership. So while we are here lets bring in the Langston debt. That debt was "unsecured" and is the reason while it has not been paid to date. Lets just explain what an Unsecured debt it. If you give someone £100 without a contract then they are not immediately obliged to pay you. You would have to go through the court process, win judgement then they will be obliged to pay you. if when you handed over the £100 that someone gave you their car then you have in a way secured your £100. The Langston loan was secured against nothing, hence why it is unsecured, and for them to get their money they would have to go to court of which they have not. This is why that debt is still around.

Now when Tan came in it is believed our debt was around £50m. This I believe includes the unsecured Langston debt. Since then we have had 2 Premier seasons with its riches but yet we find ourselves now fighting a relegation battle to League one with a squad that is worth pennies compared to what he inherited. I'm not sure what the debt is now and I don't care because its all owed to him. Personally I believe its all his own fault for allowing it to generate because his ownership is turning out to be a f%^&ing disaster.


So many contradictions in one post.

Langstone (Sam) has been paid off. Did Sam actually put any money in? His loans were against the club paid by the 600k a year wage he took from the club.

Granted he had to have equity to enable that and get us going.


What don't you understand about unsecured loans. Langston/Sam debt was not secured against the club at all. The debt was £30m so divide that £600k means he was here for over 30 years. Right.

And yes the club does still owe Sam/Langston.


Explain that Ian?

Tan paid off all the secured and unsecured debts. There’s a case about the presidency outstanding.

Sam was paid a lot more than he actually put in. If he is still after money from our club it contradicts anything said that he loves our club.


The club built up a debt of £30m under Sam reign. That money came from Langston so we were all told. It was later announced from the courts that Sam was Langston. So yes Sam would have put in more than what he got paid. Now where Sam got that money from is the mystery of which we will most likely never know.

Him getting the Presidency was part of the deal to pay that debt off BUT as the club stabbed him in the back over that he is now claiming it back.
User avatar
Bakedalasker
 
Posts: 17337
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Derby



Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bluebirdoct1962, carmarthen bluebird, cityone, corky, lockey1927, T-G-I-ROBINFRIDAY, YM Bluebird and 307 guests

Disclaimer :
The views and comments entered in these forums are personal and are not necessarily those of the management of this board.
The management of this board is not responsible for the content of any external internet sites.