its not black and white (forgive the pun), malky and tan both played a part in getting us up. how much blame / praise you afford each one for the promotion / relegation is difficult….. spending money is no guarantee of success, but spending no money is a guarantee of failure (with very few exceptions). after the OGS debacle, and were it not for bantergate i'd have him back here tomorrow. yes he made a relatively poor start to PL management but he's an excellent championship manager.
Can I just say that I like this post....strong views on both sides, without resorting to any childish name calling. Even from the idiot pratts that disagree with me (hee, hee)...(sorry don't posses the technical know-how to do those smiley faces things).
Whiffle/Stevo - good debate. Logged in a few times yesterday to read whilst away, but decided you were doing OK...... (there's one of those awfully difficult technical know-how smiley things whiff) Stevo - the only thing I'd really disagree with what you've said was something in that last post. Tan couldn't "pocket the parachute payments and run for the hills" - it's £59M in total (£18M this year) paid over 4 years and has to be demonstrably used to assist clubs with their incurred Premier level running costs. It cannot be used for debt reduction. Of course, if a club should go straight back up, it forfeits the £41M due in the subsequent years - but I think we'd take that eh?
Again Dai? Chill out mun. Club strategy Honourable man's money and lucky red shirts buy success and Premier League status, dishonourable man bring bad luck and Championship. Only at Cardiff City.
I know that 'rule' exists but if Tan took all other revenue streams and basically left only the parachute payments in, surely that would effectively do the same thing? I'm sure a bit of clever accounting could soon find a way to get that money out. Selling the vast majority of the playing squad and keeping that for debt reduction would be a reasonable start for example. Debt reduction is an interesting term. You can't run a club which can't pay it's debts therefore if a major creditor is demanding settlement the best way of using the payments to run the club would be to alleviate the immediate debt issue. I think all that rule could control is the payment of the parachute funds direct to an owner or other 3rd party. I did word it incorrectly though
Dai - take it easy pal. . I saw your post on here aboutg it and decided to leave it - Taff must have had other thoughts. The thread was indeed started by a jack. "The slob" took the opportunity of Tan's interview to post a wum thread and was an obvious attempt to cause some friction. Unfortunately for him, it turned into a decent duscussion thread between two good Cardiff posters in the main. Stevo - I'm sure Vince would have no trouble in extracting the maximum "cashback" from the club if he chose to do it - my only point was the parachute payments are not paid into his bank account for him to withdraw and do a runner.
I got to be honest her taffthefish, your last comment about Dai Rhonnda is disgusting. Why dont you apologise to the bloke instead of being sarcastic, Dai has been a poster on here and the 606 board and i like his views. Perhaps you should say 'BYE'
Right call by Taff ronny, DJ's comment added about as much to this debate as Lee Naylor did the City's defense And was correctly deleted. DJ's a good poster but if he wants to chuck the toys out the pram, let him.
With respect to all posters. Blaming Vincent Tan for where we are today just does not add up. Before he came we were a Championship team heading towards financial ruin. After he came we are a Championship team with financial security. What do you want? He has made mistakes but we are not worse off because of him.
I think if Dai had responded to the opening wum with that comment it would have been more reasonable in response to an obvious wum thread (I've always had a fondness of turning wum threads into good discussion if possible). Dai's response seemed to be to Swan-m though who's comment was on topic therefore IMO deleting it was fair.
Can't understand this Tan bashing myself Temple. It seems to be on the strength of the colour and badge change which is understandable, but the rest of the stuff often borders on the hysteria about the man. Must admit that Tan comes across as an arrogant despot determined to have his own way, and this interview does nothing other than confirm that impression. The truth about him may be different, but that's the way he portrays himself and you can't blame fans for seeing him in that light. His condescending approach is at odds with reality. It can't hide the hallmarks of a ruthless owner who wants to be loved, but at the same time because of the financial power he wields, actually rules by fear. The fact needs to be faced is that he owns the club and will ultimately determine it's destiny. He is our immediate future, and some objectors should take a more circumspect view on the matter rather than popping off at the guy at every opportunity.
Bob - in all probability we wouldn't have a club right now if it wasn't for him - we were 90% down the slippery slope to extinction let alone admin. All this doesn't make Tan a saint, but it's about time some of the fundamentalists woke up to reality. Yes, it could still all go tits up, but we're being treated to a ride that seemed impossible 3 years back.
Spark! I just don't like or trust the guy and dread the day he decides to pull the plug and reclaim his investment. With hindsight the Riddler would have been better off taking a loan out with Wonga and not involving Tan. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29457044
But VT isn't charging 1000+%. Is he???? Didn't he say in the interview he is in for £160/170m? How much in shares and how much still in loans is the question? Up to what date are the latest published accounts?
Tan is on a totally different level to any previous owner/investor. If he ever does choose the cut and run he'll lose a huge amount of money and (probably worse for him) it'll be a huge embarrassment. His best bet to save face would be to blame leaving in that fashion on the section of 'horrible' support which drove him out. Tan want's to make money on the investment by selling a PL club, he'll need 2 or 3 years of PL stability for the value to reflect that and turn a profit for him. Tan's here to stay. My opinion is until we get someone else with very deep pockets or the established PL status required to fund this club and our debts that's a good thing.
Losing a pretty good poster there taff , the " Bye " shows its personal , not a good mod trait . As for Tan , he always shows its personal also , hes thinks hes bigger than the club ,from day 1 imo
