" I THINK A FEW PEOPLE ARE WORRIED "

Tried posting this on my phone earlier, but it got lost.

So on the Hotel computer now.

I can´t see whats new here, apart from an off the cuff comment from Vince.

Annis and carl insisting there is something going on, but not mentioning what, leaving posters to add 2 and 2 and get about 7. Annis convinced the 2nd agreement isn´t valid.

The other side is the accounts show the 2nd agreement as being in play, so this is in writing backed up by the board of directors and anyone who has been on this board, including Tan,TG Guy, Borley, Ridsdale, hall, Isaacs and about 6 or 7 others. Many of these serious business men.

If the accounts aren´t true all these guys are guilty of fraud !

The facts are there is 15m to pay off by 2016, which is closing in quickly.
If Sam fgos to court, no matter how hopeful he or his legal advisors are , and lets face it they didnt give very good advise last time, then he is mad,as hes only got 4 years to wait for his money and a court case will cost millions and take years to complete. The Malays have the funds to fight it until hes dry.

These same hints and rumours have been going around for years and I beleive that if his case was so tight he´d have gone for it by now.

Also any dreams about Sams return have got to be countered by the fact that he´s an old man without the funds to take us any further. As opposed to the malays who have got the money and have a team of people behind them who can develop this club to become big enough to not only go up but survive in the prem for many years.

I won´t be making many more posts on this for a few days as Im on holiday, but just thought it was worth balancing the debate a little with some objective facts.

Couple of other things, its still in the Malays interest to settle before we go up. So the payment date will be early if we are successful asuit will save them 5m.

Tried posting this on my phone earlier, but it got lost.

So on the Hotel computer now.

I can´t see whats new here, apart from an off the cuff comment from Vince.

Annis and carl insisting there is something going on, but not mentioning what, leaving posters to add 2 and 2 and get about 7. Annis convinced the 2nd agreement isn´t valid.

The other side is the accounts show the 2nd agreement as being in play, so this is in writing backed up by the board of directors and anyone who has been on this board, including Tan,TG Guy, Borley, Ridsdale, hall, Isaacs and about 6 or 7 others. Many of these serious business men.

If the accounts aren´t true all these guys are guilty of fraud !

The facts are there is 15m to pay off by 2016, which is closing in quickly.
If Sam fgos to court, no matter how hopeful he or his legal advisors are , and lets face it they didnt give very good advise last time, then he is mad,as hes only got 4 years to wait for his money and a court case will cost millions and take years to complete. The Malays have the funds to fight it until hes dry.

These same hints and rumours have been going around for years and I beleive that if his case was so tight he´d have gone for it by now.

Also any dreams about Sams return have got to be countered by the fact that he´s an old man without the funds to take us any further. As opposed to the malays who have got the money and have a team of people behind them who can develop this club to become big enough to not only go up but survive in the prem for many years.

I won´t be making many more posts on this for a few days as Im on holiday, but just thought it was worth balancing the debate a little with some objective facts.

Couple of other things, its still in the Malays interest to settle before we go up. So the payment date will be early if we are successful asuit will save them 5m.

Tim
he cant go to court because full disclosure will expose him as langston even the high court judge in the summary judgement case indicated that.
Once exposed as langston that opens up a new ball game about lending money to yourself etc.
Lets face it if he was just a representitive of langston he would have been replaced by now for doing a piss poor job of getting their money back and there would have been a new court case.
Trouble is here that people are dismissing the club and its directors and relying on information from sam and ridsdale.
I was present in sams company when he said it was his debt and when he left the club the debt went with him so that was a massive lie.
If i started to type the lies ridsdale has told annis would not thank me for overloading his board and making it crash.
Personally i think we should just let both parties get on with whatever they are doing and concentrate on the football side of things because we can talk about this issue until the cows come home and none of us can predict the outcome

IAlso any dreams about Sams return have got to be countered by the fact that he´s an old man without the funds to take us any further.

Most sensible and factual comment on this thread.

IAlso any dreams about Sams return have got to be countered by the fact that he´s an old man without the funds to take us any further.

Most sensible and factual comment on this thread.

Problem being sense doesn't sit well with most people!

Judging by the response on this link
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=62246

I think a few people are worried and listening to a few who work at the ground they tell me the same Hmm


I will leave it at that, but watch this space (This season not next ).

Why "leave it at that"? If you know something, then say it. Otherwise, what's the point in starting this thread?

IAlso any dreams about Sams return have got to be countered by the fact that he´s an old man without the funds to take us any further.

Most sensible and factual comment on this thread.

Wrong Tim and Polo, Sam has made Millions since he left City and yes he looked drained when he left, but I can promise you this he is back to his old self, but a lot wiser this time.

Judging by the response on this link
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=62246

I think a few people are worried and listening to a few who work at the ground they tell me the same Hmm


I will leave it at that, but watch this space (This season not next ).

Why "leave it at that"? If you know something, then say it. Otherwise, what's the point in starting this thread?

Well I seem to have caused a good debate and a good response and thats what forums are for

IAlso any dreams about Sams return have got to be countered by the fact that he´s an old man without the funds to take us any further.

Most sensible and factual comment on this thread.

Wrong Tim and Polo, Sam has made Millions since he left City and yes he looked drained when he left, but I can promise you this he is back to his old self, but a lot wiser this time.

Football at the top level (Where we want to go) is about billionaires not millionaires, Annis.

Besides, Sams cavalier approach nearly sent us to the wall once, I dont think anyone who really cares about City would want to go through that again.

but is Sam getting worried that he may NOT get his money though ??

Martyn, is that a question ?

If so, NO quite the opposite, He has been told by the legal profession he will win hands down as the contracts have been broken by the other parties and all payments have ceased.

So that would be the opinion of someone in the legal profession paid by Sam/Langstone Any ambitious lawyer would say something similar to their client unless the case was absolutely hopeless or they were on a "no win, no fee" contract.

There may be some merit to Sam's case, there may not. What is in the public domain is the opinion of the High Court Judge considering the Langston application for summary judgement. In refusing that application he stated that the club had every likelihood of mounting a successful defence to the action. That judge was far more independent than any lawyer paid by Sam and had no need to be so strong in his judgment at such a hearing.

As a previous poster has pointed out. The judge also alluded to the fact that it was likely that during a full trial Langston would be exposed as Sam (or vice versa), and that opens up a whole new can of worms re: lending money to yourself/your company that Sam would have to face. This judgment was not appealed by Sam/Langston so read into that what you wish.

I don't think any of us know what will happen with this case but until we have any further independant opinion I would suggest you have to go with the public documents and the words of the previous Judge. Of course, that too would be subject to further scrutiny at a full trial but, for now, it is as independant as we are going to get.

Football at the top level (Where we want to go) is about billionaires not millionaires, Annis.

Swansea

IAlso any dreams about Sams return have got to be countered by the fact that he´s an old man without the funds to take us any further.

Most sensible and factual comment on this thread.

Wrong Tim and Polo, Sam has made Millions since he left City and yes he looked drained when he left, but I can promise you this he is back to his old self, but a lot wiser this time.

Hi Annis,

Millions aren't enough. Tens maybe even hundreds will be needed to make us successful.

How is he going to work it ? Its clear Sam wouldn't be able to work with anyone else, and to take-over the club would require him to buy about £30m of shares - even if half of this was made up by exchanging his debt for shares then it would be £15m down before he starts. Then the millions needed each year just to break even. Probably more if gates drop, which could well happen.

Also he might be in good spirits, but he's 63 now, not exactly the age to be taking on something like City.

Football at the top level (Where we want to go) is about billionaires not millionaires, Annis.

Swansea

They got lucky. Plenty of other far bigger clubs have failed, and time and time again with more resources.

Also, do you really expect them to stay there long term ? Look at the list of similar clubs who've gone up and are now back in the Championship -or worse.

If we are really going to ever reach our potential we will need serious investment.

Football at the top level (Where we want to go) is about billionaires not millionaires, Annis.

Swansea

They got lucky. Plenty of other far bigger clubs have failed, and time and time again with more resources.

Also, do you really expect them to stay there long term ? Look at the list of similar clubs who've gone up and are now back in the Championship -or worse.

If we are really going to ever reach our potential we will need serious investment.

Well at the start of the season no.

BUT look at the other clubs. Some if not quite a few are in a terrible state, Wigan, Wolves, Blackburn....The Jacks could quite easily survivew not due to them being good but a few other being worse. The jacks got promoted becuase it was a weak league, they could quite easily stay up because of the same reason.

Football at the top level (Where we want to go) is about billionaires not millionaires, Annis.

Swansea

They got lucky. Plenty of other far bigger clubs have failed, and time and time again with more resources.

Also, do you really expect them to stay there long term ? Look at the list of similar clubs who've gone up and are now back in the Championship -or worse.

If we are really going to ever reach our potential we will need serious investment.

Well at the start of the season no.

BUT look at the other clubs. Some if not quite a few are in a terrible state, Wigan, Wolves, Blackburn....The Jacks could quite easily survivew not due to them being good but a few other being worse. The jacks got promoted becuase it was a weak league, they could quite easily stay up because of the same reason.

Most of those clubs' problems are short term.
The Jacks may well stay up, they've done well so far, but long term, no chance.

Is that our aim a season or 3 fighting relegation.

Hey right now it would be nice, but long term we should be aiming higher.

One guy, 63 y.o with very little support behind him, and a few million to play with -and even that I'm unsure about -I mean we can check Tan's wealth, but Sam's is always a mystery. He can say he's doing well, but what are his businesses called, how do we really know what he has behind him ?

So that would be the opinion of someone in the legal profession paid by Sam/Langstone Any ambitious lawyer would say something similar to their client unless the case was absolutely hopeless or they were on a "no win, no fee" contract.

There may be some merit to Sam's case, there may not. What is in the public domain is the opinion of the High Court Judge considering the Langston application for summary judgement. In refusing that application he stated that the club had every likelihood of mounting a successful defence to the action. That judge was far more independent than any lawyer paid by Sam and had no need to be so strong in his judgment at such a hearing.

As a previous poster has pointed out. The judge also alluded to the fact that it was likely that during a full trial Langston would be exposed as Sam (or vice versa), and that opens up a whole new can of worms re: lending money to yourself/your company that Sam would have to face. This judgment was not appealed by Sam/Langston so read into that what you wish.

I don't think any of us know what will happen with this case but until we have any further independant opinion I would suggest you have to go with the public documents and the words of the previous Judge. Of course, that too would be subject to further scrutiny at a full trial but, for now, it is as independant as we are going to get.

The fact that the Judge said the club could mount a defence is a whole world away from a 'successful' defence and I wouldn't read anything into that whatsoever.

For example one of the defence positions was that an 'Email' was sent confirming unconditional status. Now at a full hearing Langston's lawyers could rightly say that is not a fit and proper way to conduct business and at the very least each side should have received notification in WRITING on headed notepaper. I'm not saying that Langston would win on that point, but it does show that there are weakness which could be exploited at a full hearing, so mounting a defence as I said is not a guarantee of a successful defence.

I also cannot understand this thing about Sam being exposed as 'Langston' and that it would prove he 'loaned' money to himself. That is utter bollox he loaned money to Cardiff City (it is in the accounts) and directors/chairman/owners loan money to their companies all the time.

For example Roman Abramovich loaned Chelsea £500m until he converted most of it into equity so that the club wouldn't fall foul of the new fair play regulations. Dave Richards at Sheffield Wednesday is owed £2.5m in loan notes, so nothing would be gained by exposing Sam as Langston, and there is also the possibility that he is telling the truth and the money did come from other investors.