I'm Shocked

I think this goes along way to explaining why things had to be cut back. A lot was pinned on gaining immediate automatic promotion. I suspected as much, but still can't believe how naive the club has been in that respect.

I wonder when they decided to make the cut backs? Was it after Ole left?

glasgowronnie wrote:I wonder when they decided to make the cut backs? Was it after Ole left?

That's a question I have been asking since the reality of the transfer window. Would Tan have appointed Slade if the prospect of an instant return to the PL was still on the cards?

No, I think Ole was a much bigger disaster than has even been acknowledged. The club hitched up to his wagon, but the wheels fell off before it got going. Harsh reality, just seven games into the new season.

All that said, with the squad we had, a manager like Pulis could have still pulled it off, but I guess Tan just wasn't taking the risk. Maybe, coupled with the bad feeling over the red thing, he was tired of being p*ssed on by all things Cardiff City?

Wondering did he not go for pulis as he was the fans choice?

Those figures are very scary. A £14m loss in our Premier League season, which begs the question: Why the fuc* did we splash out £10m on two centre-backs during the off-season?!

The new stand I can sort of understand. I would have waited another year or two before building it, but can't really blame Tan on that one.

Wasn't the new stand a UEFA set requirement for the supercup? I was under the belief that we made a profit on it for that reason. If not, pretty crappy business sense - again.

And that number is exactly why I'm still so pessimistic. It doesn't really make an ounce of difference who the money is owed to - we still owe 80 million pounds more than we could afford even if we sold every single asset we had.

Much of the loss now appears to be from the writing down of player valuations In other words, we paid far too much for them and those figures subsequently had to be reduced for accounting purposes

Red614 wrote:Wasn't the new stand a UEFA set requirement for the supercup? I was under the belief that we made a profit on it for that reason. If not, pretty crappy business sense - again.

And that number is exactly why I'm still so pessimistic. It doesn't really make an ounce of difference who the money is owed to - we still owe 80 million pounds more than we could afford even if we sold every single asset we had.

The amount owed doesn't much matter, as the main creditor is Vincent Tan and it is the poor financial accounting by his team (as opposed to the team on the field) that has led to the situation.  He will have to roll with the punch on this.

TDA wrote:

Red614 wrote:Wasn't the new stand a UEFA set requirement for the supercup? I was under the belief that we made a profit on it for that reason. If not, pretty crappy business sense - again.

And that number is exactly why I'm still so pessimistic. It doesn't really make an ounce of difference who the money is owed to - we still owe 80 million pounds more than we could afford even if we sold every single asset we had.

The amount owed doesn't much matter, as the main creditor is Vincent Tan and it is the poor financial accounting by his team (as opposed to the team on the field) that has led to the situation.  He will have to roll with the punch on this.

It matters more than anything - the rest of your argument was based on a promise by a man who already has a habit of breaking promises whenever it suits him. The only fact in the whole thing is that regardless of who cost us what, we are drowning because he let his staff spend stupid amounts of money without proper supervision.

But the debt is to him and he might well write it off, given it has arisen because of lack of due diligence on his part. A debt to a third party would be far more serious.

And to think, I had a serious moral and financial quandary about paying £5.50 for an 'eat-in' salad in Pret the other day...