" IF THESE FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS FIND "

" IF THESE FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS FIND "

IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM LANGSTON or SAM GUILTY OF ANY WRONG DOING THEN I PERSONALLY WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM WHAT SO EVER AGAIN. The same with ALL the Rest of them that signed it All of and agreed to it.

BECAUSE CARDIFF CITY IS MY CLUB and THATS WHAT COMES FIRST.

Hear Hear

Sound like yuor confident they won't find anything wrong?

Hi Baker.

Sound like yuor confident they won't find anything wrong?

Ian
I am 100% Confidant, But If I am Wrong THEN I SWEAR BY WHAT I HAVE JUST STATED

" IF THESE FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS FIND "

IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM LANGSTON or SAM GUILTY OF ANY WRONG DOING THEN I PERSONALLY WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM WHAT SO EVER AGAIN.

BECAUSE CARDIFF CITY IS MY CLUB and THATS WHAT COMES FIRST.

well obviously i want them to find something cause it will mean we`ll remove a big debt! .... but i would feel sorry for the likes of yourself who as been a big supporter of his .... i think everybody in life as been sucked in by someone and for it to be false .... and it bloody hurts!

Annis,

If that is the case, I agree with your stance on Hammam.

Rest of the board, not sure. Remember Sam had 85% of the shares. Little any of the other directors realistically could have done in the circumstances - gone public, causing Hammam to potentially flounce out killing the club?

" IF THESE FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS FIND "

IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM LANGSTON or SAM GUILTY OF ANY WRONG DOING THEN I PERSONALLY WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM WHAT SO EVER AGAIN. The same with ALL the Rest of them that signed it All of and agreed to it.

BECAUSE CARDIFF CITY IS MY CLUB and THATS WHAT COMES FIRST.

Shows how much you love this club Annis... I know that friends will always come first with me, but when that trust is broke or a friend has lied, then it's hard accept. It's your personal issues, and it should stay that way. Your friendship to Sam should be no business to anyone else.

Fair play, I think that makes a lot of sense, and I think you should be applauded for saying that.

I hope they don't, as I've always liked Sam, but on the other hand, it could save us a lot of money, so there would be a silver lining!

Hi Baker.

Watch it you.

" IF THESE FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS FIND "

IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM LANGSTON or SAM GUILTY OF ANY WRONG DOING THEN I PERSONALLY WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM WHAT SO EVER AGAIN. The same with ALL the Rest of them that signed it All of and agreed to it.

BECAUSE CARDIFF CITY IS MY CLUB and THATS WHAT COMES FIRST.

Fair play to you I was beginning to seriously question your motives but that's a brave move.

Good man

Hi Baker.

Watch it you.

" IF THESE FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS FIND "

IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM LANGSTON or SAM GUILTY OF ANY WRONG DOING THEN I PERSONALLY WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM WHAT SO EVER AGAIN. The same with ALL the Rest of them that signed it All of and agreed to it.

BECAUSE CARDIFF CITY IS MY CLUB and THATS WHAT COMES FIRST.

Well said Annis

Everybody knows you love the club

" IF THESE FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS FIND "

IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM LANGSTON or SAM GUILTY OF ANY WRONG DOING THEN I PERSONALLY WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM WHAT SO EVER AGAIN. The same with ALL the Rest of them that signed it All of and agreed to it.

BECAUSE CARDIFF CITY IS MY CLUB and THATS WHAT COMES FIRST.

Absolutely right Annis and when you say it I believe you 100% but I promise you one thing SH will remain your friend.

Please don't get taken in by the illusion that something or someone has done something wrong because it's only an illusion and here why;

2000 SH buys control of Cardiff City FC
2000-2004 Cardiff City borrow £22m from Citibank
2004 Citibank call in the loans
2004 SH agrees unsecured loan note with Langston Corporation to repay Citibank.
2006 Cardiff City renegotiate Langston loan note to secure unconditional Council support for Stadium Project
2009 Cardiff City renegotiate Langston loan note to repay reduced amount if paid by 31st December 2010
2010 Cardiff City fail to repay Langston debt in line with 2009 loan note
2011 Cardiff City announce they have engaged FA to investigate legitimacy of expenditure during SH years 200-2004.

So where exactly did the statement this week say that the Langston loan notes are not legally binding documents whatever loan note is in play be it loan note 1 or loan note 27654882-157/a. Instead we get a statement saying we have these FA looking at the legitimacy of expenditure under SH during 2000-2004.

Everyone and his dog knows SH spent to much money during that period but what convinced a major international bank to support him- The New Stadium.

People will read into this that VT & TG have identified some wrong doing on behalf of SH please give me a break he just spent to much money trying to deliver a dream.

It doesn't make him a bad person and I think he will remain your friend for a longtime to come.

" IF THESE FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS FIND "

IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM LANGSTON or SAM GUILTY OF ANY WRONG DOING THEN I PERSONALLY WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM WHAT SO EVER AGAIN. The same with ALL the Rest of them that signed it All of and agreed to it.

BECAUSE CARDIFF CITY IS MY CLUB and THATS WHAT COMES FIRST.

Absolutely right Annis and when you say it I believe you 100% but I promise you one thing SH will remain your friend.

Please don't get taken in by the illusion that something or someone has done something wrong because it's only an illusion and here why;

2000 SH buys control of Cardiff City FC
2000-2004 Cardiff City borrow £22m from Citibank
2004 Citibank call in the loans
2004 SH agrees unsecured loan note with Langston Corporation to repay Citibank.
2006 Cardiff City renegotiate Langston loan note to secure unconditional Council support for Stadium Project
2009 Cardiff City renegotiate Langston loan note to repay reduced amount if paid by 31st December 2010
2010 Cardiff City fail to repay Langston debt in line with 2009 loan note
2011 Cardiff City announce they have engaged FA to investigate legitimacy of expenditure during SH years 200-2004.

So where exactly did the statement this week say that the Langston loan notes are not legally binding documents whatever loan note is in play be it loan note 1 or loan note 27654882-157/a. Instead we get a statement saying we have these FA looking at the legitimacy of expenditure under SH during 2000-2004.

Everyone and his dog knows SH spent to much money during that period but what convinced a major international bank to support him- The New Stadium.

People will read into this that VT & TG have identified some wrong doing on behalf of SH please give me a break he just spent to much money trying to deliver a dream.

It doesn't make him a bad person and I think he will remain your friend for a longtime to come.

And you're doing what you're accusing others of doing.

Namely making a judgment without facts.

Nobody knows precisely what is being looked at, what would be found.

I would however correct one part of your post.

You're claiming only the expenditure is under investigation. That's utterly incorrect and is pretty plain from the statement.

"The circumstances behind the original loan and the application of the funds remain difficult to establish to the satisfaction of the Board and as a result the Club has engaged third party forensic accountants to further investigate the issue of validating the legitimacy of the loans and expenditure incurred when the Club was under the full management control of Mr Sam Hammam."

Legitimacy of the loans doesn't just, imo, cover the actual amount claimed. For example, could it have been the case Sam ramped up the spending dramatically, took over bank loan, hoping to later sell his shares and profit from interest on the loan if it's proven he is behind Langston? I'm sure Keith could clarify this point a bit further, but a director's obligation is to act in the best financial interests of the company they are a director of.

In short, and I freely acknowledge I've nowhere near the knowledge of since62 or others, but if there's anything found that could show Hammam neglected his legal duty as a director of the Cardiff FC company, then could that make him liable to court action, potentially?

And you're doing what you're accusing others of doing.

Namely making a judgment without facts.

Nobody knows precisely what is being looked at, what would be found.

I would however correct one part of your post.

You're claiming only the expenditure is under investigation. That's utterly incorrect and is pretty plain from the statement.

"The circumstances behind the original loan and the application of the funds remain difficult to establish to the satisfaction of the Board and as a result the Club has engaged third party forensic accountants to further investigate the issue of validating the legitimacy of the loans and expenditure incurred when the Club was under the full management control of Mr Sam Hammam."

Legitimacy of the loans doesn't just, imo, cover the actual amount claimed. For example, could it have been the case Sam ramped up the spending dramatically, took over bank loan, hoping to later sell his shares and profit from interest on the loan if it's proven he is behind Langston? I'm sure Keith could clarify this point a bit further, but a director's obligation is to act in the best financial interests of the company they are a director of.

Absolutely right Nerd you've got me down to a tee there but if it's OK I will give SH the benefit of the doubt because none exists in my mind.

By the way good to see there was nothing judgemental in your post I really must try harder.

Hi Baker.

Watch it you.

How come you only use this account now and not the 13 others?

And you're doing what you're accusing others of doing.

Namely making a judgment without facts.

Nobody knows precisely what is being looked at, what would be found.

I would however correct one part of your post.

You're claiming only the expenditure is under investigation. That's utterly incorrect and is pretty plain from the statement.

"The circumstances behind the original loan and the application of the funds remain difficult to establish to the satisfaction of the Board and as a result the Club has engaged third party forensic accountants to further investigate the issue of validating the legitimacy of the loans and expenditure incurred when the Club was under the full management control of Mr Sam Hammam."

Legitimacy of the loans doesn't just, imo, cover the actual amount claimed. For example, could it have been the case Sam ramped up the spending dramatically, took over bank loan, hoping to later sell his shares and profit from interest on the loan if it's proven he is behind Langston? I'm sure Keith could clarify this point a bit further, but a director's obligation is to act in the best financial interests of the company they are a director of.

Absolutely right Nerd you've got me down to a tee there but if it's OK I will give SH the benefit of the doubt because none exists in my mind.

By the way good to see there was nothing judgemental in your post I really must try harder.

You and anyone is free to give benefit of doubt. You can't claim you've zero doubts because for that to happen you'd need to be in possession of all the facts, all the emails, all the receipts et al. We simply don't know.

And there was nothing judgmental in my post. I gave an example indicating why the legitimacy of the loans process could well be questioned. Hence it wasn't posted as a fact. FAs may find nothing, they may find something. The tone of the statement would tend to indicate the Malaysians may well think they've got something. That would then be up to a court to determine if it stands up or not.

You on the other hand claimed only the expenditure was being looked at, which is contradicted by the statement.

Hi Baker.

Watch it you.

How come you only use this account now and not the 13 others?

You and anyone is free to give benefit of doubt. You can't claim you've zero doubts because for that to happen you'd need to be in possession of all the facts, all the emails, all the receipts et al. We simply don't know.

And there was nothing judgmental in my post. I gave an example indicating why the legitimacy of the loans process could well be questioned. Hence it wasn't posted as a fact. FAs may find nothing, they may find something. The tone of the statement would tend to indicate the Malaysians may well think they've got something. That would then be up to a court to determine if it stands up or not.

You on the other hand claimed only the expenditure was being looked at, which is contradicted by the statement.

How on earth can you say that I can't claim to have zero doubts are you saying that you cannot have an opinion unless you have all the facts or that you shouldn't trust what is right before your eyes?

I have no doubts because I believe VT & TG have made an attempt to reach an agreement with SH / Langston - WHY?

Because they have a loan note whatever number or version doesn't matter they have attempted to get an agreement which suited them, not SH or Langston them. If the loan note wasn't legally binding why try to reach an agreement they could just tell SH / Langston to sod off but they can't.

Now they want to investigate the legitimacy of the expenditure which yes created the circumstances requiring the Langston Loan. If SH was reckless in his spending during this time how on earth did he convince an International Bank to support him?

And if SH was reckless how would you describe the expenditure at the club last season, or was it just part of a longterm plan to develop the business in the Asian market and therefore the investment is credible because of the potential returns.

Maybe SH expenditure was credible if the stadium had been delivered it wasn't maybe last season expenditure was credible if it delivers PL and helps develop the Asian marketing opportunities.

By the way is it OK for VT to develop marketing opportunities in Asia to make money and get a return on his investment, of course it is. Just like it was OK for SH to spend with the aim of developing the stadium.

I have no doubts SH has done nothing wrong here except fail to get the stadium developed - zero doubts.

CastleBlue

we have no idea what the FA's will be looking into, all we know is that tow very astute businessmen, with their advisors believe their may be some mileage in looking further into transactions that resulted in (i) an overdraft of £22m with citibank and (ii) that overdraft being converted into £24m loan notes, an increase of £2m over the overdraft.

during the period 2000-2005 there was a transfer deficit of no more than £6m (player sales less purchases). Ticket sales were probably near £5m on average each season (11,000 x 23 x £20), plus tV money, merchandising and league money, plus cup runs probably gave us enough revenue to just about cover the wage bill so the operational side is almost zero sum. That leaves the academy and the development of NP which cannot amount to £16m between them over the five year period.

you mention the debt increased last season means that VT and TG have little credibility. I see it the other way, I see it that they ensure the football clubs met its obligations on contracts that they were not party to. They may not like the contracts, but they honoured them. That is my take on it, I am unsure how others could perceive it any way. Yes the debt may have increased, but it has increased as the result of contractual obligations before VT and TG came on board, except for Bellamys wages, which were more than repaid by shirt sales and increased season tickets.

To compare last years increase in debt which was always going to happen as a result of contractual obligations with the Hammam years where money was thrown around like freewheeling spendocrats is absurd. Hammam had opportunities to reign in the spending but gave certain players pay rises when not required and paid over the odds for players.

these malaysians aint millionaires for doing nothing they a clever people ???? and this is from a sam fan

" IF THESE FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS FIND "

IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM LANGSTON or SAM GUILTY OF ANY WRONG DOING THEN I PERSONALLY WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM WHAT SO EVER AGAIN. The same with ALL the Rest of them that signed it All of and agreed to it.

BECAUSE CARDIFF CITY IS MY CLUB and THATS WHAT COMES FIRST.

annis

with regards to the loan notes the directors only ever saw them once and they were unsigned.
so none of the directors ever knew where they came from or from what organisation they originated from as sam told them it was his business.
To be perfectly honest it was not really a board at all because sam did what he wanted and even if he lost a vote as he did with getting rid of lennie lawrence then he still did what he wanted to do.
annis you more than anybody knew how dictatorial sam could be if he wanted to.
With having complete control over the club at the time i think he believed he could do whatever he wanted with the loan notes and he could never imagined the same way that we never could that some years later a malaysian billionaire would come into the club and start to scrutinise the goings on from years previous.
As i have said before the thing that has always puzzled me was why did langston not call in the loan notes themselves and take over the business plan and stadium development because they would have ended up with all the assets and then converted the loans into shares and made the club debt free and of course sam could have come back when that was achieved.

How on earth can you say that I can't claim to have zero doubts are you saying that you cannot have an opinion unless you have all the facts or that you shouldn't trust what is right before your eyes?

Of course you can have an opinion. Anyone can and should. To have zero doubts means you treat it as a stone cold 100% fact. And if you're coming to that view with incomplete data, as we all are, of course there's a level of doubt.

I have no doubts because I believe VT & TG have made an attempt to reach an agreement with SH / Langston - WHY?

Expediency. Why drag things out through the courts, delaying a full takeover, when a settlement could suffice?

Because they have a loan note whatever number or version doesn't matter they have attempted to get an agreement which suited them, not SH or Langston them. If the loan note wasn't legally binding why try to reach an agreement they could just tell SH / Langston to sod off but they can't.

They could; and depending upon what the FA report indicates, may even do so. Let's not forget the FA report would be admissable in a court of law should proceedings ever take place.

Now they want to investigate the legitimacy of the expenditure which yes created the circumstances requiring the Langston Loan. If SH was reckless in his spending during this time how on earth did he convince an International Bank to support him?

And if SH was reckless how would you describe the expenditure at the club last season, or was it just part of a longterm plan to develop the business in the Asian market and therefore the investment is credible because of the potential returns.

Well, the two scenarios are different with regards to the transparency of the investment. Malaysian money, we know precisely who it's come from. Under Hamamm, we had the debt with Citibank, which was then taken over by Langston who nobody really knows anything about but suspect them to be Hammam... if the Malaysian investment was surrounded in such secrecy, I'd be worried too.

Maybe SH expenditure was credible if the stadium had been delivered it wasn't maybe last season expenditure was credible if it delivers PL and helps develop the Asian marketing opportunities.

Hammam's plan revolved around the new stadium getting us out of the shit; yet his business plan to support the case, eh, it wasn't a good one. To make a massive understatement. Even so, we still had massive excesses whilst at the lowest level ( Gavin Gordon etc ) which were baffling to anybody looking at the way Wimbledon was run - youth system / buy cheap, sell higher. Hammam deviated massively from the Wimbledon approach. Maybe, just maybe, he felt he could get away with that - push the finances to the absolute limit, take over the debt, profit when selling the club. IF ( and I emphasise it's a massive IF ) that was the approach, then imo ( and as I've said others know far far more ) Hammam would have been derelict in his duly as a director on that score.

The Malaysian investment, well, as I've said before, it's hardly shrouded in secrecy. Loans have been converted into equity previously, after all.

By the way is it OK for VT to develop marketing opportunities in Asia to make money and get a return on his investment, of course it is. Just like it was OK for SH to spend with the aim of developing the stadium.

There's a massive difference. No-one is claiming ROI should never happen. It's just for me the manner in which it was done that could well be the issue.

I have no doubts SH has done nothing wrong here except fail to get the stadium developed - zero doubts.

Well, running up the debt to 24m in the first place - something no other club did to get to where we got, by the way - hoping a new stadium would then wipe that out sounds remarkably like Ridsdale's plan that increasing debt would be great if it got solved by getting into the Prem...

I don't think Mr Feedback is an accountant let alone a "Forensic Accoutant".

Just a another sniper from the other lot.

Perhaps we, the most sensible message board should draw a line in the sand. Freedom of expression, opinions, hell call my wife a goat, who cares, this is dogs gonards when it comes down to it.

Cardiff City or nothing, they're not MY club, they're not OUR club, they're CARDIFF CITY.

I don't think Mr Feedback is an accountant let alone a "Forensic Accoutant".

Just a another sniper from the other lot.

Perhaps we, the most sensible message board should draw a line in the sand. Freedom of expression, opinions, hell call my wife a goat, who cares, this is dogs gonards when it comes down to it.

Cardiff City or nothing, they're not MY club, they're not OUR club, they're CARDIFF CITY.

Mad as a bucket of cats

" IF THESE FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS FIND "

IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM LANGSTON or SAM GUILTY OF ANY WRONG DOING THEN I PERSONALLY WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM WHAT SO EVER AGAIN. The same with ALL the Rest of them that signed it All of and agreed to it.

BECAUSE CARDIFF CITY IS MY CLUB and THATS WHAT COMES FIRST.

Annis your a changed man...the club is definately moving forward and defo a NEW ERA A POSITIVE ERA....Loosing the play offs could well have been a GOOD THING FOR THIS CLUB

I don't understand any of this Langston stuff personally

" IF THESE FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS FIND "

IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM LANGSTON or SAM GUILTY OF ANY WRONG DOING THEN I PERSONALLY WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM WHAT SO EVER AGAIN. The same with ALL the Rest of them that signed it All of and agreed to it.

BECAUSE CARDIFF CITY IS MY CLUB and THATS WHAT COMES FIRST.

A big statement from a big man....

I don't think Mr Feedback is an accountant let alone a "Forensic Accoutant".

Just a another sniper from the other lot.

Perhaps we, the most sensible message board should draw a line in the sand. Freedom of expression, opinions, hell call my wife a goat, who cares, this is dogs gonards when it comes down to it.

Cardiff City or nothing, they're not MY club, they're not OUR club, they're CARDIFF CITY.

Eh?