hamman from the other board sumd it up really !

this quote totally sums it up for me


If Sam is Langstone, then Langstone (Sam) lent Cardiff (owned by Sam)some money, so that Cardiff could gamble that money on getting promoted to the Premier League.

If the gamble had paid off, then the biggest financial winner would have been Sam, as owner of Cardiff.

However, the gamble didn't pay off - so now Sam wants his gambler's stake back.

But he gambled, he lost - so surely, that should be the end of it?

Obviously there's an important point I'm missing somewhere - but to someone who is no financial expert such as me, that's the way this whole stroy reads.

What am I missing then?

this quote totally sums it up for me


If Sam is Langstone, then Langstone (Sam) lent Cardiff (owned by Sam)some money, so that Cardiff could gamble that money on getting promoted to the Premier League.

If the gamble had paid off, then the biggest financial winner would have been Sam, as owner of Cardiff.

However, the gamble didn't pay off - so now Sam wants his gambler's stake back.

But he gambled, he lost - so surely, that should be the end of it?

Obviously there's an important point I'm missing somewhere - but to someone who is no financial expert such as me, that's the way this whole stroy reads.

What am I missing then?

Thats what all owners do though, VT will want his money back on his own gamble same as anyone who owns a club surely

this quote totally sums it up for me


If Sam is Langstone, then Langstone (Sam) lent Cardiff (owned by Sam)some money, so that Cardiff could gamble that money on getting promoted to the Premier League.

If the gamble had paid off, then the biggest financial winner would have been Sam, as owner of Cardiff.

However, the gamble didn't pay off - so now Sam wants his gambler's stake back.

But he gambled, he lost - so surely, that should be the end of it?

Obviously there's an important point I'm missing somewhere - but to someone who is no financial expert such as me, that's the way this whole stroy reads.

What am I missing then?

He loaned us the money didn`t he?

this quote totally sums it up for me


If Sam is Langstone, then Langstone (Sam) lent Cardiff (owned by Sam)some money, so that Cardiff could gamble that money on getting promoted to the Premier League.

If the gamble had paid off, then the biggest financial winner would have been Sam, as owner of Cardiff.

However, the gamble didn't pay off - so now Sam wants his gambler's stake back.

But he gambled, he lost - so surely, that should be the end of it?

Obviously there's an important point I'm missing somewhere - but to someone who is no financial expert such as me, that's the way this whole stroy reads.

What am I missing then?

Thats what all owners do though, VT will want his money back on his own gamble same as anyone who owns a club surely

and it would be the same for vt he put it in it his fault ,think tans got more money to see it through tho and will come out the winner

this quote totally sums it up for me


If Sam is Langstone, then Langstone (Sam) lent Cardiff (owned by Sam)some money, so that Cardiff could gamble that money on getting promoted to the Premier League.

If the gamble had paid off, then the biggest financial winner would have been Sam, as owner of Cardiff.

However, the gamble didn't pay off - so now Sam wants his gambler's stake back.

But he gambled, he lost - so surely, that should be the end of it?

Obviously there's an important point I'm missing somewhere - but to someone who is no financial expert such as me, that's the way this whole stroy reads.

What am I missing then?

He loaned us the money didn`t he?

yes he lent it to himself ,what i would say at the time would you say the 24 million was value for money under his managment ?

Unfortunately for us it's not as simple as that. If he loaned us the money then its not a stake or a gamble even if it was a company (Langston) that loaned to Cardiff City FC whilst Sam was in charge of affairs. Sam had clearly covered himself so that if the gamble didn't pay off he could get back what he put in or equivalent value in todays market. Therefore you could say on a personal level he has been clever to make sure he will get his initial money. It wasn't really Sam taking the gamble but more the club taking the gamble with Langston's money, or so i'm led to believe given the explanation in the findings.

this quote totally sums it up for me


If Sam is Langstone, then Langstone (Sam) lent Cardiff (owned by Sam)some money, so that Cardiff could gamble that money on getting promoted to the Premier League.

If the gamble had paid off, then the biggest financial winner would have been Sam, as owner of Cardiff.

However, the gamble didn't pay off - so now Sam wants his gambler's stake back.

But he gambled, he lost - so surely, that should be the end of it?

Obviously there's an important point I'm missing somewhere - but to someone who is no financial expert such as me, that's the way this whole stroy reads.

What am I missing then?

He loaned us the money didn`t he?

I thought he said he was spending his own money till he was skint??

this quote totally sums it up for me


If Sam is Langstone, then Langstone (Sam) lent Cardiff (owned by Sam)some money, so that Cardiff could gamble that money on getting promoted to the Premier League.

If the gamble had paid off, then the biggest financial winner would have been Sam, as owner of Cardiff.

However, the gamble didn't pay off - so now Sam wants his gambler's stake back.

But he gambled, he lost - so surely, that should be the end of it?

Obviously there's an important point I'm missing somewhere - but to someone who is no financial expert such as me, that's the way this whole stroy reads.

What am I missing then?

He loaned us the money didn`t he?

I thought he said he was spending his own money till he was skint??

in this clip you fuckers keep spending my money untill im fucked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCdRN92t5dc

Does anyone know how much money Langston lent us?
I don't mean how much we owe them with interest and naming rights but how much did they put into the club?

this quote totally sums it up for me


If Sam is Langstone, then Langstone (Sam) lent Cardiff (owned by Sam)some money, so that Cardiff could gamble that money on getting promoted to the Premier League.

If the gamble had paid off, then the biggest financial winner would have been Sam, as owner of Cardiff.

However, the gamble didn't pay off - so now Sam wants his gambler's stake back.

But he gambled, he lost - so surely, that should be the end of it?

Obviously there's an important point I'm missing somewhere - but to someone who is no financial expert such as me, that's the way this whole stroy reads.

What am I missing then?

He loaned us the money didn`t he?

I thought he said he was spending his own money till he was skint??

in this clip you fuckers keep spending my money untill im fucked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCdRN92t5dc

But sammy didn't mean to tell lies it was either classed as a mistake or his passion getting the better of him

this quote totally sums it up for me


If Sam is Langstone, then Langstone (Sam) lent Cardiff (owned by Sam)some money, so that Cardiff could gamble that money on getting promoted to the Premier League.

If the gamble had paid off, then the biggest financial winner would have been Sam, as owner of Cardiff.

However, the gamble didn't pay off - so now Sam wants his gambler's stake back.

But he gambled, he lost - so surely, that should be the end of it?

Obviously there's an important point I'm missing somewhere - but to someone who is no financial expert such as me, that's the way this whole stroy reads.

What am I missing then?

One thing I dont get is why Sam continues to deny being Langston?

If (as the judge suggested) it could be proven in a Full Court Case that he was
indeed the "governing mind and will of Langston at all times".... would that
mean he acted illegally (borrowing money to himself etc)

Is that the Clubs ace in the hole? Or doesnt it really matter?

I dont understand that bit?

this quote totally sums it up for me


If Sam is Langstone, then Langstone (Sam) lent Cardiff (owned by Sam)some money, so that Cardiff could gamble that money on getting promoted to the Premier League.

If the gamble had paid off, then the biggest financial winner would have been Sam, as owner of Cardiff.

However, the gamble didn't pay off - so now Sam wants his gambler's stake back.

But he gambled, he lost - so surely, that should be the end of it?

Obviously there's an important point I'm missing somewhere - but to someone who is no financial expert such as me, that's the way this whole stroy reads.

What am I missing then?

One thing I dont get is why Sam continues to deny being Langston?

If (as the judge suggested) it could be proven in a Full Court Case that he was
indeed the "governing mind and will of Langston at all times".... would that
mean he acted illegally (borrowing money to himself etc)

Is that the Clubs ace in the hole? Or doesnt it really matter?

I dont understand that bit?

no he can borrow money from one company to company ,what he cant do is run the company insolvent on purpose for a gain the courts wouldnt like that at all

One thing I dont get is why Sam continues to deny being Langston?

If (as the judge suggested) it could be proven in a Full Court Case that he was
indeed the "governing mind and will of Langston at all times".... would that
mean he acted illegally (borrowing money to himself etc)

Is that the Clubs ace in the hole? Or doesnt it really matter?

I dont understand that bit?

You may be on to something there. I did read somewhere in a document that in one of the findings there was no reason to believe that Sam wasn''t Langston but I can't seem to recall that passage of information. If that is the case then maybe thats why Tan has been getting people in to look things over to make sure that when 2016 comes along he has everything nailed to the mast ready to put forward a concrete solid case. It's obviously speculation on our behalf because in terms of finances at the club only Tan and Sam/Langston know what's going on in reality. Maybe Tan isn't as bothered as some think.

I don't think Sam will ever get his money.

The forensic accountants apparently "found nothing" but they would hardly have told the world if they found something they could exploit in court. I am guessing like everyone else, but if they found nothing Tan would have paid off Sam early as he knew how much dosh he was going to throw at this.

I don't think Tan will convert the debt until the court case goes through. We will probably be £200 million in debt (to tan) and if the case goes against him (us) then he can offer Sam a 10% stake or admin with Tan being having preferred debt.