Very similar to another post but was this rumour ever true.?

Not sure if it was DJ's book or PRs book but they mentioned a contract was agreed with DJ and Sam tried to increase it just before signing it

When Sam Hamman brought Leo Fortune-West from Rotherham his price tag was £30,000 but Sam Hamman thought it was a mistake and offered a price of £300,000 which was accepted straight away

Heard that years ago and always wondered if it was true.

woudnt suprise me the guy was a fool

When Sam Hamman brought Leo Fortune-West from Rotherham his price tag was £30,000 but Sam Hamman thought it was a mistake and offered a price of £300,000 which was accepted straight away

Heard that years ago and always wondered if it was true.

not just leo fortune west but also other players who had agreed contracts with the club and were ready to sign and sam upped their wages as much as 6 times with tony warner getting 9k a week when he had agreed 1.5k.
this has always been my argument why sam should only get a percentage of his money back as he had no right to behave in that manner bearing in mind that it was not his own money he was using but borrowed money that despite his reckless spending he expects the club to pay back with interest.

When Sam Hamman brought Leo Fortune-West from Rotherham his price tag was £30,000 but Sam Hamman thought it was a mistake and offered a price of £300,000 which was accepted straight away

Heard that years ago and always wondered if it was true.

not just leo fortune west but also other players who had agreed contracts with the club and were ready to sign and sam upped their wages as much as 6 times with tony warner getting 9k a week when he had agreed 1.5k.
this has always been my argument why sam should only get a percentage of his money back as he had no right to behave in that manner bearing in mind that it was not his own money he was using but borrowed money that despite his reckless spending he expects the club to pay back with interest.

you sure? because i seem to remember him saying he coudnt stop spending his money i hope he gets less than a quid back off our owners

When Sam Hamman brought Leo Fortune-West from Rotherham his price tag was £30,000 but Sam Hamman thought it was a mistake and offered a price of £300,000 which was accepted straight away

Heard that years ago and always wondered if it was true.

not just leo fortune west but also other players who had agreed contracts with the club and were ready to sign and sam upped their wages as much as 6 times with tony warner getting 9k a week when he had agreed 1.5k.
this has always been my argument why sam should only get a percentage of his money back as he had no right to behave in that manner bearing in mind that it was not his own money he was using but borrowed money that despite his reckless spending he expects the club to pay back with interest.

Without going through the whole Langston argument again there was an offer to settle the Langston Loan Note debt for £10m by the 31/12/10.

We know that the debt once stood at £24m (and that's before we talk about all the interest which was written off) so on that basis Langston would have received 41% of the capital sum owed or 28% if you include the interest.

So indeed there was a way of paying Sam/Langston back at a reduced % to make up for his rumoured mistakes.

When Sam Hamman brought Leo Fortune-West from Rotherham his price tag was £30,000 but Sam Hamman thought it was a mistake and offered a price of £300,000 which was accepted straight away

Heard that years ago and always wondered if it was true.

If Sam was being so slack about the finances, wouldn't that add credence to the claims he was only a front man for someone else (therefore it was not his money) and this was then further substantiated when the loan note was made out to a company (Langston) rather than himself?

When Sam Hamman brought Leo Fortune-West from Rotherham his price tag was £30,000 but Sam Hamman thought it was a mistake and offered a price of £300,000 which was accepted straight away

Heard that years ago and always wondered if it was true.

not just leo fortune west but also other players who had agreed contracts with the club and were ready to sign and sam upped their wages as much as 6 times with tony warner getting 9k a week when he had agreed 1.5k.
this has always been my argument why sam should only get a percentage of his money back as he had no right to behave in that manner bearing in mind that it was not his own money he was using but borrowed money that despite his reckless spending he expects the club to pay back with interest.

Without going through the whole Langston argument again there was an offer to settle the Langston Loan Note debt for £10m by the 31/12/10.

We know that the debt once stood at £24m (and that's before we talk about all the interest which was written off) so on that basis Langston would have received 41% of the capital sum owed or 28% if you include the interest.

So indeed there was a way of paying Sam/Langston back at a reduced % to make up for his rumoured mistakes.

rumoured mistakes??

When Sam Hamman brought Leo Fortune-West from Rotherham his price tag was £30,000 but Sam Hamman thought it was a mistake and offered a price of £300,000 which was accepted straight away

Heard that years ago and always wondered if it was true.

If Sam was being so slack about the finances, wouldn't that add credence to the claims he was only a front man for someone else (therefore it was not his money) and this was then further substantiated when the loan note was made out to a company (Langston) rather than himself?

tony

the loan notes were only seen once by the directors and were not signed by anybody and certainly did not indicate the langston corperation.
I have always believed the money came from the rudgewick company run by sam and ned as i have a set of accounts showing a balance of in excess of 24 million in a particular year
the next set of accounts for the following year show that 24 million gone which coincided with the citibank loan being payed off in the same financial year.
coincidence you decide

I can see where this thread is going to end up......so for that reason, im out

It'a amazing how these little tales seem to come out about how Sam uped wages for no reason. I can think of several players now without even thinking about it too hard that would totally laugh at that. Ask around and you'll find that Sam could be very ruthless when it came to cutting players wages. No one mentions that now do they.

I'd go as far to say that Sam asked "others" how much a player costs and his wages etc. He then either agreed that or didn't before moving on a player.

Where these tales don't fit in is because of this. The contract would be written out ready to sign before Sam would even meet the player. So all the details of wages would have been agreed long before the meeting, all typed out ready for signing.

What Sam would do, and lots of people know this, he would have the contract on the table in his office. When the player arrived at the club and was introduced to Sam, Sam would lock his office door and put the key down his trousers. He wouldn't give the player the key until he signed the contract that was on the table. If Sam was going to change the wages then that contract on the table wouldn't have been there now would it.

It'a amazing how these little tales seem to come out about how Sam uped wages for no reason. I can think of several players now without even thinking about it too hard that would totally laugh at that. Ask around and you'll find that Sam could be very ruthless when it came to cutting players wages. No one mentions that now do they.

I'd go as far to say that Sam asked "others" how much a player costs and his wages etc. He then either agreed that or didn't before moving on a player.

Where these tales don't fit in is because of this. The contract would be written out ready to sign before Sam would even meet the player. So all the details of wages would have been agreed long before the meeting, all typed out ready for signing.

What Sam would do, and lots of people know this, he would have the contract on the table in his office. When the player arrived at the club and was introduced to Sam, Sam would lock his office door and put the key down his trousers. He wouldn't give the player the key until he signed the contract that was on the table. If Sam was going to change the wages then that contract on the table wouldn't have been there now would it.

my apologies berwyn you obviously had better access to players contracts than the directors and some ex directors at the time.
you are spot on about the contracts being drawn up first and wages agreed but believe me sam then upped the wages and bonuses linked to that contract and others including ridiculous goal bonus scheme's and all this on borrowed money which is what some people cant seem to get their heads around.
He was an 83% shareholder in the football club and he borrowed that 24 million and he had a duty to the club and its supporters to use the money frugally not to use us as a glorified subueteo game wher several years down the line other directors and investors are expected to pick up the tab

It'a amazing how these little tales seem to come out about how Sam uped wages for no reason. I can think of several players now without even thinking about it too hard that would totally laugh at that. Ask around and you'll find that Sam could be very ruthless when it came to cutting players wages. No one mentions that now do they.

I'd go as far to say that Sam asked "others" how much a player costs and his wages etc. He then either agreed that or didn't before moving on a player.

Where these tales don't fit in is because of this. The contract would be written out ready to sign before Sam would even meet the player. So all the details of wages would have been agreed long before the meeting, all typed out ready for signing.

What Sam would do, and lots of people know this, he would have the contract on the table in his office. When the player arrived at the club and was introduced to Sam, Sam would lock his office door and put the key down his trousers. He wouldn't give the player the key until he signed the contract that was on the table. If Sam was going to change the wages then that contract on the table wouldn't have been there now would it.

my apologies berwyn you obviously had better access to players contracts than the directors and some ex directors at the time.
you are spot on about the contracts being drawn up first and wages agreed but believe me sam then upped the wages and bonuses linked to that contract and others including ridiculous goal bonus scheme's and all this on borrowed money which is what some people cant seem to get their heads around.
He was an 83% shareholder in the football club and he borrowed that 24 million and he had a duty to the club and its supporters to use the money frugally not to use us as a glorified subueteo game wher several years down the line other directors and investors are expected to pick up the tab

I take it Steve that your comment about "ridiculous goal bonus scheme's" is still based on Peter Thorne? That was one mistake that was actually (and you know this) simply a typo and since Sam didn't actually type it out you can only blame him for not checking it, but certainly not for arranging it.
As for your borrowed money hang up - shock horror! Chairman loans money! Do you honestly think that Russian bloke is gifting money to Chelsea? Or are they just living on borrowed money?

When Sam Hamman brought Leo Fortune-West from Rotherham his price tag was £30,000 but Sam Hamman thought it was a mistake and offered a price of £300,000 which was accepted straight away

Heard that years ago and always wondered if it was true.

If Sam was being so slack about the finances, wouldn't that add credence to the claims he was only a front man for someone else (therefore it was not his money) and this was then further substantiated when the loan note was made out to a company (Langston) rather than himself?

tony

the loan notes were only seen once by the directors and were not signed by anybody and certainly did not indicate the langston corperation.
I have always believed the money came from the rudgewick company run by sam and ned as i have a set of accounts showing a balance of in excess of 24 million in a particular year
the next set of accounts for the following year show that 24 million gone which coincided with the citibank loan being payed off in the same financial year.
coincidence you decide

Steve it actually says in the Accounts that £24m was used to pay off Citibank, although you are correct that £30m was raised by Loan Stock. There is no indication what happened to the other £6m but it doesn't appear to have been loaded against the club as debt.

TBH Steve things change all the time and may be Langston became involved after your director friends saw the unsigned loan note agreement. One thing that cannot be argued against is that the Loan Stock was raised and used to pay off Citibank.

Even if Sam does turn out to be Langston I really don't see what relevance that has. Loans are made by Chairman/Directors all the time so why should it be any different with Sam Hammam or Rugwick?

As for the theory that Sam lied to a high court judge again I'm not sure that is true. Sam Hammam did-not give oral evidence at the 2008 Summary Judgement Hearing and I very much doubt he put anything in a sworn affidavit.

It was Ridsdale who constantly banged on about Sam being Langston and it was because of that Justice Briggs picked up on it in his Judgement. Also if Sam was part of Langston he would only need to prove one other person (e.g. Ned) was working with him and hey presto you have a consortium. A consortium is not an individual and Sam Hammam could therefore prove he was not Langston as he has always claimed.

I just wish our present directors/board would stop this nonsense and realise they have to come to an agreement with Langston, sooner the better.

And Sam got to be a Multi multi multi Millionaire because he was an idiot and threw money around in this manner

And Sam got to be a Multi multi multi Millionaire because he was an idiot and threw money around in this manner

how do you know sam is a multi multi multi millionaire as you describe
if he was as rich as you are making out why did he not carry on with the stadium project and why did he not come up with a viable business plan for the stadium.
is it just possible that the millions he made out of selling wimbledons ground off to a superstore was blown before he could get to the same stage with us.
its amazing that people overlook what he did to wimbledon

Yes, mustn't overlook Sams crimes at Wimbledon.

FA cup win, all the way Premiership football from complete obscurity.

People don't complain about Gretna in Scotland, who were a very similar case - they are just grateful for the time they had.

Oh yeah, just incase anyone asks : I'm not Midfield General or Daya, nor do I have any agendas.

Yes, mustn't overlook Sams crimes at Wimbledon.

FA cup win, all the way Premiership football from complete obscurity.

People don't complain about Gretna in Scotland, who were a very similar case - they are just grateful for the time they had.

Oh yeah, just incase anyone asks : I'm not Midfield General or Daya, nor do I have any agendas.

yes another misconception that people often forget
wimbledon were already in the football league when sam took over and not in footballing obscurity.
he still sold wimbledons ground from underneath them and at one stage wanted to move them to cardiff and call them the cardiff dons.

hello everyone in whales city lalalala city :

sammy " bought" Wimbledon for 100,000 poundies from Ronie Noady his friend because Noady wanted bigger club but Noady really wanted to keep wombles too.

Sammy was front for Wimbledon Noady headed up palarse - they then sell ploughy lane for lot of money

good business move then move wimbles to palarce and have ground used every week other friend TA not nice man want by spuds with cash that not be explained

then come mad man called Markie Golding who buy palarce team only for 24 million poundies und Noady keep ground.

Goldie spunk all his money with El Tel and soon run out and Noady have palarce back.

Sammy buy shares in spuds to 10% worth for TA

Sammy and Noady sell Wimbles for lot money , Noady sell palarce to phone man jordun with girls hair for money again

Noady lot of money he sell clubs for loads and give Sammy some for be good boy

Sammy go buy City , Noady buy Brentford, Noady and TA build golf courses

Spud say bugger off want no more money

City and Brentford apply for new groundies

Sammy get stuck at city on 24 milllion poundies when he think get ground build. Noady cant get ground build in brentford

Both leave City and Brentford leaving loanie noties that have to be paid back

Langy is sammy,noady and TA.

TA?

Taffy Apples = Langston?!