Can't do right for doing wrong?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
FrankfurterBlue said:
Dai, for someone who has been very close to TWO administration operations, you really are a dull Dai who seems to have learned bugger all. Tan can force repayment and if there is a default, adminstration follows......you will remember that. All assets will be used in a set order to satisfy creditors. There MIGHT be a creditors voluntary arrangement to agree a lower payout but the assets are all sold to the highest bidder. Yes....Tan will lose some money but we risk losing the whole shooting match.....with a landlord for the ground etc etc. Of course, you will see nothing wrong with renting your ground from someone else......i prefer having the sssets under the control of theclub.
Click to expand...



If that is the deal you think then in reality cardiff are still in debt and are only surviving while tan is there and once he goes he will have had his bit of fun and it wont cost him anything other than what he put in outside the debt as he will leave cardiff in a worst financial state than before he came with the initial debt plus what the club would have amassed since he been there........That is not a good deal for cardiff at all and i cant see that is what has happened......Where is the risk factor for tan? ...If tan has paid the debt then he cant very well say its a loan as what sort of deal is that for Christ sake.
What about all the changes he has made? do the club have to pay for that also and who will pay for the change back when he does go because as sure as eggs are eggs the club will revert back to being the bluebirds again...Tan has paid the debt it was his debt as he bought the debt and that's the price he paid to buy the club. Cardiff owe's him sod all because if they did then tan never bought the club as the money was just a loan and if he never bought the club he could not re brand. he cant have it both ways. the debt has been settled and when tan leaves he will leave a mess behind him but with very little money and he knows this very well..
 
It is difficult to repeat what has been said if some fail to understand the position.

The Langstons debt was financed by high interest being paid till it was settled, Tan loans the money to pay that as the time was fast approaching when it was due in full and if he never sorted that we would be back in court.If owners simply give all the money to the clubs then that is known as a gift, when have you ever seen that Tan gave us a gift of £140 million?

Last time: The money is in the form of loans that Tan has stated he will at some point convert to equity...if the money was given to the club how the hell can he convert it to equity...because...are you listening mother?...it is in the form of loans.

The fact that Tan has invested so much means he can never recoup much of his investment, this shows he can only be here because he feels this club has so much more potential than many clubs he could have invested in including lesser premier league clubs.

jck
 
For someone who questioned how other posters got their info earlier by asking if they'd read the documents you seem very sure of info that hasn't been released.

For the record none of us have a ****ing clue how much is loans, equity or whether loans are soft or interest bearing. The terms of the loans etc etc. This years accounts when made available will clarify some of this unless the club officially release any info before that but I can't imagine why they will unless Tan finds himself needing good pr.

What I will say is Tan has been pretty much good to his word to this point, so it is fair to assume the 50 mill soft loans will apply and he will continue to convert loans to equity up until a point only he really knows.
 
How can you lend someone money and take control??? I dont get it. Lending is not buying is it. How can you own something if all you are going to do is lend the club money, Cant you see what im saying here....? To actually own the club then he has got to buy it lock stock and barrel including any debt the club has. If it is just a loan then that is not buying the club as to who is he paying this loan too. It don't make sense and if it dont make sense then its not true...cardiff's debt has been paid and there is no way he can ask for that back as when he bought the club he bought the debt ....how you cant see what im saying is baffling....
 
DaiswanHuwsmate said:
How can you lend someone money and take control??? I dont get it. Lending is not buying is it. How can you own something if all you are going to do is lend the club money, Cant you see what im saying here....? To actually own the club then he has got to buy it lock stock and barrel including any debt the club has. If it is just a loan then that is not buying the club as to who is he paying this loan too. It don't make sense and if it dont make sense then its not true...cardiff's debt has been paid and there is no way he can ask for that back as when he bought the club he bought the debt ....how you cant see what im saying is baffling....
Click to expand...

FFS! You can do both. You can buy shares and loan money and convert loans to equity and then still have loans and then loan more money to the company and then...

Please tell me that isn't too difficult to understand. He owns the company and the company owes him money it's not ****ing difficult and is a situation many wealthy company owners will be in with some of their companies.
You see you probably don't bother asking the bank if you have the cash yourself but then in other cases maybe he has just guaranteed the loan, this is a football forum though so the business lesson needs to end here Dai and JCK.

Maybe we could start a "people who obviously don't understand what they want to argue about thread" and you and JCK could knock yourselves out having one of the worst arguments I've ever seen.
 
Dai has got a point here
If Tan has bought the club with someone else's cash (loans) then that means there is another Langstone episode around the corner
He is a billionaire so he probably loaned himself the cash ( a bit like Sam did with his mates)
Now I know sweet FA about what has gone on same as jck knows sweet FA about who borrowed what and owes it to who etc
but potentially there is Langstone 2 coming to a cinema near us
 
Stevoldinho said:
FFS! You can do both. You can buy shares and loan money and convert loans to equity and then still have loans and then loan more money to the company and then...

Please tell me that isn't too difficult to understand. He owns the company and the company owes him money it's not ****ing difficult and is a situation many wealthy company owners will be in with some of their companies.
You see you probably don't bother asking the bank if you have the cash yourself but then in other cases maybe he has just guaranteed the loan, this is a football forum though so the business lesson needs to end here Dai and JCK.

Maybe we could start a "people who obviously don't understand what they want to argue about thread" and you and JCK could knock yourselves out having one of the worst arguments I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

I want to join that argument thread cos I know absolutely fook hall about it <ok>
 
you are not buying if all you are doing is lending .It don't make sense however you try to dress it up. He never loaned the club he bought the club, He must have if he had the authority to do what he wanted as your sure as hell cant do that if all you are doing is lending the club money. they would laugh him out of any court in the land if he tried to say he loaned the club money after all the changes he has made...
 
Jesus wept...Tan bought a controlling share in the club by buying those shares.

That remains his investment and all he can do is sell those shares.

Right then he finds unless he pays urgent bills there wont be a club so he pays the tax bills in the form of loans. Then we are losing £1 million a month so he covers that in the form of another loan and so on...

If you buy Tan`s shares you will in effect own the club and be responsible for paying off the loans to Tan.

No one will buy the shares even if he would sell because they realise the club would go into admin unless they paid Tan back the loans.

So...and this is the part you are missing...as long as Tan stays he owes himself the money.

Give me the strength to get some fresh air.

jck
 
Not really though. Man city and Chelsea is all being done on soft loans from wealthy owners.

The langstone situation was trying to rip cash out of the club with a loan that had very little good faith towards the club. Hate/love/tolerate Tan the guy has ploughed more in than any other owner in our history.

There are all sorts of potential tax benefits by investing the money as loans rather than the ridiculous idea of gifting it. It does mean tan can protect himself as well.

If he increases the value of the club through PL success he can convert to equity, sell some shares, get money back and still own a controlling interest in an established PL side. That can be his only plan not least as he's getting ready to plough cash into Ole's plans. He can't float the club with a huge loan debt against it, so he has to sort them out at some point but there's no rush, not least whilst about 1k fans want to chase him out of the city with burning torches.
 
Steve some sense.

If we can establish the club as a top side he can convert to shares and sell shares at a premium, probably like at Man Utd to usa and china in non voting non dividend type.

But we do not have to worry about poor Mr Tan`s risk as long as he remains the owner.

jck
 
DaiswanHuwsmate said:
you are not buying if all you are doing is lending .It don't make sense however you try to dress it up. He never loaned the club he bought the club, He must have if he had the authority to do what he wanted as your sure as hell cant do that if all you are doing is lending the club money. they would laugh him out of any court in the land if he tried to say he loaned the club money after all the changes he has made...
Click to expand...

You must be just wumming now.
 
Tan is the major shareholder, effectively owning the club.
Tan has also loaned the club money which is expected to be turned into shares.
So he is lending the club money which he is the major shareholder.
Thats how I read it anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back