| Cardiff's accounts are out 13:57 - Feb 26 with 20443 views | NeathJack |
This should be fun  |  | | |  |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 15:24 - Feb 26 with 2300 views | Uxbridge |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 15:05 - Feb 26 by Dr_Winston |
£174m total debt far outstripping the assets to cover it. A £12m loss despite PL TV money. How the hell are they allowed to continue trading?
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Purely at the whim of their benefactor. They should remember that the next time they go crying to his Mammy. |  |
| |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 15:25 - Feb 26 with 2299 views | Nookiejack |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 15:16 - Feb 26 by shandyjack |
'It is all creative accounting we have received lots of money from player sales, which will come into the next set of accounts plus we still have parachute payments to come, also we are not in debt, Vincent Tan owns Cardiff city and therefore he owes the money to himself :thumbup:'
 |
'Vincent Tan owns Cardiff city and therefore he owes the money to himself :thumbup:'
.....that makes more sense if he actions a debt to equity swap.
However the Loans mean - he can use them as a stick/rod to force the extraction of cash out of the club - by selling off any remaining assets that have value. If he so wishes.
if it was equity he would only be able to get his money out through dividends - if there were distributable reserves and unfortunately there aren't any. |  | | |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 15:39 - Feb 26 with 2271 views | blueytheblue |
Walesonline are looking at the wrong accounts - those for the football club as opposed to the holding company I do believe.
Chances are it won't affect things much but hey ho.
Still, according to the brains trust on AAMB it was claimed the debt was vastly reduced, anywhere from 40 to 150m with Tan looking to sell for 80m. | |
| |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 15:46 - Feb 26 with 2248 views | Uxbridge |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 15:25 - Feb 26 by Nookiejack |
'Vincent Tan owns Cardiff city and therefore he owes the money to himself :thumbup:'
.....that makes more sense if he actions a debt to equity swap.
However the Loans mean - he can use them as a stick/rod to force the extraction of cash out of the club - by selling off any remaining assets that have value. If he so wishes.
if it was equity he would only be able to get his money out through dividends - if there were distributable reserves and unfortunately there aren't any. |
Only a fool would ever have given any credence to his mutterings about turning the debt into equity. It served no purpose. I've long since stopped being amazed that some seemingly well qualified and sane fans of theirs were so easily duped by it. | |
| |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 15:56 - Feb 26 with 2212 views | blueytheblue |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 15:46 - Feb 26 by Uxbridge |
Only a fool would ever have given any credence to his mutterings about turning the debt into equity. It served no purpose. I've long since stopped being amazed that some seemingly well qualified and sane fans of theirs were so easily duped by it. |
Only purpose I could see would be for Tan to convert immediately prior to selling up - namely that presuming debt owed to Tan is converted then the club is sold on debt free. That's the only possible reason I could see - it's what Al Fayed did with Fulham I believe - and it's obviously going to be a long term thing rather than immediate due to the nature of it.
When does the Prem Tv money get paid? Is it after the season? Having not seen the accounts yet, it may be that figure is in the accounts for 2015? | |
| |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 15:58 - Feb 26 with 2205 views | NeathJack |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 15:56 - Feb 26 by blueytheblue |
Only purpose I could see would be for Tan to convert immediately prior to selling up - namely that presuming debt owed to Tan is converted then the club is sold on debt free. That's the only possible reason I could see - it's what Al Fayed did with Fulham I believe - and it's obviously going to be a long term thing rather than immediate due to the nature of it.
When does the Prem Tv money get paid? Is it after the season? Having not seen the accounts yet, it may be that figure is in the accounts for 2015? |
No Bluey, the Prem money is included in those accounts  | | | |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:01 - Feb 26 with 2191 views | Nookiejack |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 15:56 - Feb 26 by blueytheblue |
Only purpose I could see would be for Tan to convert immediately prior to selling up - namely that presuming debt owed to Tan is converted then the club is sold on debt free. That's the only possible reason I could see - it's what Al Fayed did with Fulham I believe - and it's obviously going to be a long term thing rather than immediate due to the nature of it.
When does the Prem Tv money get paid? Is it after the season? Having not seen the accounts yet, it may be that figure is in the accounts for 2015? |
Any idea of what the fair value of the assets are compared to size of debt?
i.e. How much pence in the £ is Tan likely to accept for his debt? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:05 - Feb 26 with 2180 views | blueytheblue |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:01 - Feb 26 by Nookiejack |
Any idea of what the fair value of the assets are compared to size of debt?
i.e. How much pence in the £ is Tan likely to accept for his debt? |
Assets would be the stadium but not the land. Then again, as far as I'm aware, as part of the whole stadium/blues issue, wasn't there a covenant preventing the stadium being sold for around 20 years, matching the Blues contract? Maybe that was removed when they left but I'm sure that was mostly to prevent Hammam mortgaging/selling ASAP. You'd also have the squad, fixtures and fittings at the ground. Not sure what else.
I can't see much being raised. Marshall and Manag aside, can't think of many others who would command big fees at this point in time.
EDIT: From the article :-
"Wages and salaries across the club rose from £27m to £46.7m while “disposal of players’ registrations” during that period is quoted at £5.1m."
I'd presume that would include automatic wage increases due to promotion, bonuses and the higher wages wanted by the new recruits - who were brought in summer and January due to the two managers.
"Cost of player registrations is stated at £45.7m, up from £16.5m the previous season, while £11.6m came from sales."
Would that be agents fees etc? Again, wouldn;'t surprise me. [Post edited 26 Feb 2015 16:09]
| |
| |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:10 - Feb 26 with 2168 views | Far_Post |
Is it still correct that the Swans do not include the players as assets in their accounts?
Michu would be a classic example of a player who would have been worth 20 million 18 months ago but we would be lucky to get our money back now. | |
| |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:12 - Feb 26 with 2163 views | ScoobyWho |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:10 - Feb 26 by Far_Post |
Is it still correct that the Swans do not include the players as assets in their accounts?
Michu would be a classic example of a player who would have been worth 20 million 18 months ago but we would be lucky to get our money back now. |
More of a case of damage limitation. |  |
| |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:12 - Feb 26 with 2162 views | Nookiejack |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:05 - Feb 26 by blueytheblue |
Assets would be the stadium but not the land. Then again, as far as I'm aware, as part of the whole stadium/blues issue, wasn't there a covenant preventing the stadium being sold for around 20 years, matching the Blues contract? Maybe that was removed when they left but I'm sure that was mostly to prevent Hammam mortgaging/selling ASAP. You'd also have the squad, fixtures and fittings at the ground. Not sure what else.
I can't see much being raised. Marshall and Manag aside, can't think of many others who would command big fees at this point in time.
EDIT: From the article :-
"Wages and salaries across the club rose from £27m to £46.7m while “disposal of players’ registrations” during that period is quoted at £5.1m."
I'd presume that would include automatic wage increases due to promotion, bonuses and the higher wages wanted by the new recruits - who were brought in summer and January due to the two managers.
"Cost of player registrations is stated at £45.7m, up from £16.5m the previous season, while £11.6m came from sales."
Would that be agents fees etc? Again, wouldn;'t surprise me. [Post edited 26 Feb 2015 16:09]
|
Hopefully for you he won't be delusional about fair value of the assets and allow someone else from outside to pay - true pence in the £ value of the debt. A debt to equity swap can then be enforced and you can start again.
Trouble is he seems to be an arrogant man and won't like the negative publicity of this being seen - as a failed project. | | | |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:17 - Feb 26 with 2138 views | blueytheblue |
Maybe.
Pleayer sales won't be in these accounts.
6m for Mutch. Medel and Caulker we made the fee back on those ones. Add in others moved on, say 25m coming in. Those players wages will obv reduce the wage bill. We've also reduced the wage bill by another 12m on top of that in the Jan window, albeit at the expense of paying some contracts off.
Not ideal, but should knock the debt down off that reported total.
It's a pity there's no way of seeing the real time figures.
====
From CCMB.
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/fudforum/index.php?t=msg&th=403433&start=0&rid=0
If true, then the WalesOnline net/gross debt values were both out by 17m. Still not great. [Post edited 26 Feb 2015 16:23]
| |
| |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:26 - Feb 26 with 2104 views | nantywatcher |
I like blueytheblue I wish he supported a decent club. Best of luck mate. | | | |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:33 - Feb 26 with 2091 views | Nookiejack |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:17 - Feb 26 by blueytheblue |
Maybe.
Pleayer sales won't be in these accounts.
6m for Mutch. Medel and Caulker we made the fee back on those ones. Add in others moved on, say 25m coming in. Those players wages will obv reduce the wage bill. We've also reduced the wage bill by another 12m on top of that in the Jan window, albeit at the expense of paying some contracts off.
Not ideal, but should knock the debt down off that reported total.
It's a pity there's no way of seeing the real time figures.
====
From CCMB.
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/fudforum/index.php?t=msg&th=403433&start=0&rid=0
If true, then the WalesOnline net/gross debt values were both out by 17m. Still not great. [Post edited 26 Feb 2015 16:23]
|
If the fair value of the assets are say under £10m - maybe an opportunity for your supporters Trust to raise £1m to £2m and take 10%-20% stake in your club? | | | |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:36 - Feb 26 with 2070 views | Nookiejack |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:33 - Feb 26 by Nookiejack |
If the fair value of the assets are say under £10m - maybe an opportunity for your supporters Trust to raise £1m to £2m and take 10%-20% stake in your club? |
I should have said £2.5m as that would get you to 25% - which then gives you necessary protections | | | |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:41 - Feb 26 with 2054 views | Nookiejack |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:36 - Feb 26 by Nookiejack |
I should have said £2.5m as that would get you to 25% - which then gives you necessary protections |
Could be great publicly for Tan's mother.
'I had a dream that Vincent should pass 25% ownership to the fans - for togetherness, unity and happiness' | | | |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:47 - Feb 26 with 2039 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:36 - Feb 26 by Nookiejack |
I should have said £2.5m as that would get you to 25% - which then gives you necessary protections |
The asset value of the football club is not what Tan would accept though? I'm pretty certain he would require more than £10m back ?
Remember that the biggest asset that a club has is its TV income (in this case parachute payments).
Btw - for all the crowing on here, I think it's worth mentioning two points:
1. The only possible way that the directors are not actually breaking the law and trading illegally, is if the money owed to Tan is covered by some sort of agreement that he will not call it in and the income must be sufficient to cover any scheduled repayments. Therefore, it is wrong to say it will take them under unless any such agreement falls away. If there is no such agreement, the directors of the company are trading while insolvent and that is against the law.
2. There is a sizeable minority on here (minority I think, but still quite a few) that as of a week or so ago would have happily put this club in exactly the same potential situation. Including it seems, quite a few that will publicly shout 'by the fans, for the fans' from the rooftops. Next time (and there will be a next time) people start talking about 'what can go wrong' and 'it's only fair that the shareholders can cash in' remember this set of accounts and ask yourselves 'why couldn't this happen to us'? Then perhaps think again about people's motivations and the need to keep the Trust involved. | | | |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 17:19 - Feb 26 with 1971 views | Fuggie |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:10 - Feb 26 by Far_Post |
Is it still correct that the Swans do not include the players as assets in their accounts?
Michu would be a classic example of a player who would have been worth 20 million 18 months ago but we would be lucky to get our money back now. |
The Swans include the player acquisition fees (including signing on fees I think) as an asset and amortise/write off over the players contract. For 31 May 2014 the Swans amortised £20m of their player fees. Therefore excluding this accounting expense the Swans made a pre-tax profit of £22m.
Looking at the holding company accounts they have accumulated losses of £113m at 31 May 2014 while the Swans I think had accumulated profits of £20m.
Tan may transfer some of his debt to equity to show his intention but I do not think for one minute he will want to lose £130m as he will lose £13m if the club becomes insolvent.
Still like the fact that they revalued the stadium by almost double it's cost ie £27.5m to £52.5m just to make their accounts look better. Unsure about the detail of the covenant but would not surprise me if Tan transferred/sold the Stadium into his ownership (or a company he owns) and charged rent to the club in order to get his money back. | | | |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 17:19 - Feb 26 with 1970 views | blueytheblue |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:33 - Feb 26 by Nookiejack |
If the fair value of the assets are say under £10m - maybe an opportunity for your supporters Trust to raise £1m to £2m and take 10%-20% stake in your club? |
Our Trust can't retain members and have admitted losing money on events.
Having confidence in them a) being able to raise that kind of money and b) being able to manage the money is a massive reach for anybody with a pulse.
Our Trust have failed to win hearts and minds. Some of their decisions, eh. If they get their vaunted wish of a supporter representative on the board it would be amazing. Given 96% of our fanbase are not in the trust and thus are not represented by the trust, the Trust have no mandate to speak on behalf of or make decisions for fans - only for their members. | |
| |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 17:23 - Feb 26 with 1962 views | Fuggie |
Forgot to mention did anyone notice the date they were signed and then when they were filed in companies house.
Accounts signed 15 July 2014 submitted to Companies House 13 February 2015. Explains why the Executive Chairmen's report was slightly optimistic in the expectations for promotion to the Premier League this season. | | | |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 17:34 - Feb 26 with 1933 views | Nookiejack |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 16:47 - Feb 26 by londonlisa2001 |
The asset value of the football club is not what Tan would accept though? I'm pretty certain he would require more than £10m back ?
Remember that the biggest asset that a club has is its TV income (in this case parachute payments).
Btw - for all the crowing on here, I think it's worth mentioning two points:
1. The only possible way that the directors are not actually breaking the law and trading illegally, is if the money owed to Tan is covered by some sort of agreement that he will not call it in and the income must be sufficient to cover any scheduled repayments. Therefore, it is wrong to say it will take them under unless any such agreement falls away. If there is no such agreement, the directors of the company are trading while insolvent and that is against the law.
2. There is a sizeable minority on here (minority I think, but still quite a few) that as of a week or so ago would have happily put this club in exactly the same potential situation. Including it seems, quite a few that will publicly shout 'by the fans, for the fans' from the rooftops. Next time (and there will be a next time) people start talking about 'what can go wrong' and 'it's only fair that the shareholders can cash in' remember this set of accounts and ask yourselves 'why couldn't this happen to us'? Then perhaps think again about people's motivations and the need to keep the Trust involved. |
I forgot about the parachute money. As it goes on for another two seasons (I think three seasons in total). He would definitely want this as is guaranteed.
How about selling off the club and ring fencing the parachute money - against some remaining Tan loans post sale (an effective securitisation of the parachute money) - which would be settled when years 2 and 3 of the parachute money is received. Of course you wouldn't be able to use the parachute money on players etc then.
Then what is left is stadium (with maybe certain covenants on it which means only can sell it for certain purposes - which reduces it's value) plus a couple of players with value - as per one of blueytheblue's above post.
How much is the value of what is then left - after Assuming season tickets = players salaries and other operating costs? Probably not a lot?
Really looks to be heading in a downward spiral like Blackpool and Wigan.
Totally agree a certain number of our fans wanted the same for us - with Moores and Noell planned takeover. Thank goodness for the Trust. | | | |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 17:43 - Feb 26 with 1914 views | johnlangy |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 14:57 - Feb 26 by icecoldjack |
It gets better fella!
If they sold their stadium and all players/assets the debt would still be £81m quid !
They are totally fooked, Tan will just bleed this all the way |
Possibly. But that assumes that some football team in Cardiff pays them the £50 m or so it cost to build.
Splott United anyone ? | | | |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 18:00 - Feb 26 with 1877 views | Dr_Winston |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 15:24 - Feb 26 by Uxbridge |
Purely at the whim of their benefactor. They should remember that the next time they go crying to his Mammy. |
Not only biting the hand that feeds, they're biting the hand hovering over the life support machine off-switch. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 18:22 - Feb 26 with 1830 views | blueytheblue |
| Cardiff's accounts are out on 17:34 - Feb 26 by Nookiejack |
I forgot about the parachute money. As it goes on for another two seasons (I think three seasons in total). He would definitely want this as is guaranteed.
How about selling off the club and ring fencing the parachute money - against some remaining Tan loans post sale (an effective securitisation of the parachute money) - which would be settled when years 2 and 3 of the parachute money is received. Of course you wouldn't be able to use the parachute money on players etc then.
Then what is left is stadium (with maybe certain covenants on it which means only can sell it for certain purposes - which reduces it's value) plus a couple of players with value - as per one of blueytheblue's above post.
How much is the value of what is then left - after Assuming season tickets = players salaries and other operating costs? Probably not a lot?
Really looks to be heading in a downward spiral like Blackpool and Wigan.
Totally agree a certain number of our fans wanted the same for us - with Moores and Noell planned takeover. Thank goodness for the Trust. |
What I would say is that unlike Blackpool and Wigan we have taken steps to improve things - getting high wage players off the wage bill with a few exceptions, trimming the squad down from the 38 under Ole.
Players brought in have all been for low fees and it can be assumed lower wages. I suspect that will be the model used for quite a while - if the Academy can push some players through all the better.
If it now means cutting the cloth then I'm all for it - albeit it's seasons too late. I suspect Tan's been learning about football, maybe finally realises with Bournemouth, Ipswich you don't need to spend major money.
Blackpool seemed to carry on, Wigan football needed the Prem money due to being the second sport in Wigan. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
