Sam Hammam-Did he fiddle up to £15 million?

out of the club over his time as the owner? I ask the question, as I have always been mystified as to why Langston, an organisation set up by Sam and his family are satisfied to take just £10 million to repay loan notes that totalled £24 million.

The only conclusion I can come to, is that although the club racked up debts of £24 million to City Bank, how legitimate was that £24 million in expenditure on the running of the club and team? Was there too many abnomalities found by the then board of directors? Was it some how syphoned off by the former owner?

I think this is where the introduction of the forensic accountants come in, not to look into the entire £24 million spending, because I think by Langston already reducing their demands to £10 million, this is admission enough that possibly £15 million cannot be legitimately accounted for.

I think that VT was trying to find holes in the remainder of that total, that is the £10 million, maybe the forensic accountants did find further tenuous abnomalities, which has promted VT to squeeze it even further, perhaps this is why the £8 million offer is being made.

out of the club over his time as the owner? I ask the question, as I have always been mystified as to why Langston, an organisation set up by Sam and his family are satisfied to take just £10 million to repay loan notes that totalled £24 million.

The only conclusion I can come to, is that although the club racked up debts of £24 million to City Bank, how legitimate was that £24 million in expenditure on the running of the club and team? Was there too many abnomalities found by the then board of directors? Was it some how syphoned off by the former owner?

I think this is where the introduction of the forensic accountants come in, not to look into the entire £24 million spending, because I think by Langston already reducing their demands to £10 million, this is admission enough that possibly £15 million cannot be legitimately accounted for.

I think that VT was trying to find holes in the remainder of that total, that is the £10 million, maybe the forensic accountants did find further tenuous abnomalities, which has promted VT to squeeze it even further, perhaps this is why the £8 million offer is being made.

I dont care what anyone says there are ways of taking cash out of a business without declaring it ..
For him to accept 10m payout from 24m probably shows something dodgy has happened somewhere.

out of the club over his time as the owner? I ask the question, as I have always been mystified as to why Langston, an organisation set up by Sam and his family are satisfied to take just £10 million to repay loan notes that totalled £24 million.

The only conclusion I can come to, is that although the club racked up debts of £24 million to City Bank, how legitimate was that £24 million in expenditure on the running of the club and team? Was there too many abnomalities found by the then board of directors? Was it some how syphoned off by the former owner?

I think this is where the introduction of the forensic accountants come in, not to look into the entire £24 million spending, because I think by Langston already reducing their demands to £10 million, this is admission enough that possibly £15 million cannot be legitimately accounted for.

I think that VT was trying to find holes in the remainder of that total, that is the £10 million, maybe the forensic accountants did find further tenuous abnomalities, which has promted VT to squeeze it even further, perhaps this is why the £8 million offer is being made.

I dont care what anyone says there are ways of taking cash out of a business without declaring it ..
For him to accept 10m payout from 24m probably shows something dodgy has happened somewhere.

Put it this way any hedge fund worth its salt would want every penny back plus interest and Langstone are willing to accept £10 million, what a joke. Now then if Langstone was Sam and he was set to lose £14 million plus interest without so much as batting an eyelid then something just isnt right her is it? We are talking millions here lads not tenners or hundreds but MILLIONS. Common sense tells you something just doesnt add up here.

As an owner/director, you cannot legally lend money to yourself

something doesn't quite add up with the whole langston thingy... & yet im sure i read somewhere on here b4 that the only reason sam is accepting a lesser amount is because its dragged on to long.... (not that i believe that)


personally if i was owed 24 mill and it was all above board id wait/fight get every penny no matter how long it took... as previous poster said its millions not just a few quid, BUT i think its all dodge!!!

As an owner/director, you cannot legally lend money to yourself

Wasn't it langston lending ccfc £24m? Surely he isn't going to write it in as Sam Hammam borrowing from langston.

As an owner/director, you cannot legally lend money to yourself

Wasn't it langston lending ccfc £24m? Surely he isn't going to write it in as Sam Hammam borrowing from langston.

Correct Merlin Langston lent CCFC £24m not Sam Hammam. This "Sam lent money to himself" conspiracy theory raises its head now and again but is in fact a complete myth.

if Sam and Langston were two separate companies then there would not be a problem, but as Sam is part of Langston then that is illegal no myth about that

out of the club over his time as the owner? I ask the question, as I have always been mystified as to why Langston, an organisation set up by Sam and his family are satisfied to take just £10 million to repay loan notes that totalled £24 million.

The only conclusion I can come to, is that although the club racked up debts of £24 million to City Bank, how legitimate was that £24 million in expenditure on the running of the club and team? Was there too many abnomalities found by the then board of directors? Was it some how syphoned off by the former owner?

I think this is where the introduction of the forensic accountants come in, not to look into the entire £24 million spending, because I think by Langston already reducing their demands to £10 million, this is admission enough that possibly £15 million cannot be legitimately accounted for.

I think that VT was trying to find holes in the remainder of that total, that is the £10 million, maybe the forensic accountants did find further tenuous abnomalities, which has promted VT to squeeze it even further, perhaps this is why the £8 million offer is being made.

The above is certainly one theory, another is Langston are willing to accept £10m because they are boxed in due to the December 2009 agreement (£10m + 2x£5m promotion bonuses).

So the actual settlement figure might be £20m not £10m, but that is dependant on promotion and staying there for at least one season.

So using your theory Sam only fiddled £5m

Of course he did. He was paying himself huge "Consultancy" fees through another company.

if Sam and Langston were two separate companies then there would not be a problem, but as Sam is part of Langston then that is illegal no myth about that

Absolutely wrong sorry. Vincent Tan/Steve Borley/TG/Michael Issacs have all lent CCFC money in the past and/were part of the board of directors when it happened.

Therefore using your theory they have also lent money to themselves, but I don't see anyone locking them up.

Honestly mate you are way off the mark.

Of course he did. He was paying himself huge "Consultancy" fees through another company.

I think you are correct up to a point. I remember something about a couple of £800,000 management fees charged by Rudgwick (which isn't illegal BTW) but he certainly waved them for the last few years in charge (he apparently wrote off £6m that was owed to him), after the uproar caused when this became public knowledge.

Absolutely wrong sorry. Vincent Tan/Steve Borley/TG/Michael Issacs have all lent CCFC money in the past and/were part of the board of directors when it happened.

Therefore using your theory they have also lent money to themselves, but I don't see anyone locking them up.

Honestly mate you are way off the mark.[/quote]

Tony none of those mentioned were owners not even VT all these people are shareholders, VT if and when he becomes owner then of course he can lend money to the company, but there is one thing he cannot do and that is charge interest (to himself) on those loans, he can do it now as he is not the owner, just a percentage shareholder

Absolutely wrong sorry. Vincent Tan/Steve Borley/TG/Michael Issacs have all lent CCFC money in the past and/were part of the board of directors when it happened.

Therefore using your theory they have also lent money to themselves, but I don't see anyone locking them up.

Honestly mate you are way off the mark.

Tony none of those mentioned were owners not even VT all these people are shareholders, VT if and when he becomes owner then of course he can lend money to the company, but there is one thing he cannot do and that is charge interest (to himself) on those loans, he can do it now as he is not the owner, just a percentage shareholder[/quote]
you are right as a company owner you cant charge intrest for loans you give , you can only take out what you put in tax free , he could pay himself a wage from the company tho

Of course he did. He was paying himself huge "Consultancy" fees through another company.

I think you are correct up to a point. I remember something about a couple of £800,000 management fees charged by Rudgwick (which isn't illegal BTW) but he certainly waved them for the last few years in charge (he apparently wrote off £6m that was owed to him), after the uproar caused when this became public knowledge.

I can vaguely remember something in the echo from the early years of his reign which was along the lines we are both talking.

Absolutely wrong sorry. Vincent Tan/Steve Borley/TG/Michael Issacs have all lent CCFC money in the past and/were part of the board of directors when it happened.

Therefore using your theory they have also lent money to themselves, but I don't see anyone locking them up.

Honestly mate you are way off the mark.

Tony none of those mentioned were owners not even VT all these people are shareholders, VT if and when he becomes owner then of course he can lend money to the company, but there is one thing he cannot do and that is charge interest (to himself) on those loans, he can do it now as he is not the owner, just a percentage shareholder[/quote]

Absolute nonsense. Shareholders ARE owners and in any case Sam Hammam wasn't the absolute owner of CCFC as he held 85% of the shareholding, not 100%

Of course someone can lend money to their company, it is called a directors loan and they can charge interest in the same way as you would if you lent money from a bank

I've got no idea if there was any wrong doing in racking up the debt. But isn't the current position a simple gamble - hold out for as much as much as he can now while the club is still in existence (10 mill is worthwhile ?), or take the chance that he may get nothing if the club goes into admin.

Before I'm accused of being negative - I'm not saying the club will go into admin, but wouldn't that be Sam's thinking ?

I've got no idea if there was any wrong doing in racking up the debt. But isn't the current position a simple gamble - hold out for as much as much as he can now while the club is still in existence (10 mill is worthwhile ?), or take the chance that he may get nothing if the club goes into admin.

Before I'm accused of being negative - I'm not saying the club will go into admin, but wouldn't that be Sam's thinking ?

Your half right as it also works the other way, VT can also hold out to see how much he can knock off the £10m/£24m.

out of the club over his time as the owner? I ask the question, as I have always been mystified as to why Langston, an organisation set up by Sam and his family are satisfied to take just £10 million to repay loan notes that totalled £24 million.

The only conclusion I can come to, is that although the club racked up debts of £24 million to City Bank, how legitimate was that £24 million in expenditure on the running of the club and team? Was there too many abnomalities found by the then board of directors? Was it some how syphoned off by the former owner?

I think this is where the introduction of the forensic accountants come in, not to look into the entire £24 million spending, because I think by Langston already reducing their demands to £10 million, this is admission enough that possibly £15 million cannot be legitimately accounted for.

I think that VT was trying to find holes in the remainder of that total, that is the £10 million, maybe the forensic accountants did find further tenuous abnomalities, which has promted VT to squeeze it even further, perhaps this is why the £8 million offer is being made.

You may be 100% right with this or you may be 100% wrong, i personally am not a fan of Sam and definitely think something very dodgy has gone on.

But at the end of the day, for the good of the club, the Malaysians just need to forget all the circumstances surrounding this whatever they are and JUST PAY Langston the 10m. I repeat, for the good of the club.

I've got no idea if there was any wrong doing in racking up the debt. But isn't the current position a simple gamble - hold out for as much as much as he can now while the club is still in existence (10 mill is worthwhile ?), or take the chance that he may get nothing if the club goes into admin.

Before I'm accused of being negative - I'm not saying the club will go into admin, but wouldn't that be Sam's thinking ?

Your half right as it also works the other way, VT can also hold out to see how much he can knock off the £10m/£24m.

Agred Tony - But won't this reverse if we are getting closer to the prem ?

I've got no idea if there was any wrong doing in racking up the debt. But isn't the current position a simple gamble - hold out for as much as much as he can now while the club is still in existence (10 mill is worthwhile ?), or take the chance that he may get nothing if the club goes into admin.

Before I'm accused of being negative - I'm not saying the club will go into admin, but wouldn't that be Sam's thinking ?

Your half right as it also works the other way, VT can also hold out to see how much he can knock off the £10m/£24m.

"They have a full right to protect certain interests and they have behaved properly throughout" SH talking to BBC Wales News on 22nd July 2000 about his proposed takeover.

The "They" he was talking about was the Cardiff City board and the "certain interests" was the board getting the best deal for themselves, as SH was trying to get the best deal for himself.

That what's happening here lot's of "certain interests" and both parties trying to get the best deal for themselves. Lot's of negotiation already been done and still some way to go but it feels like a deal is getting closer.

Personally I don't subscribe to this SH fiddled anything he just made some poor decisions, wrong decisions which have cost him and will continue to cost him until this is settled. As he said in that interview back in July 200.

"I am worried some people think I'm a miracle worker, I'm not. I might make decisions and the club could end up in non league"

As history has shown that statement came a little bit to close for comfort but in fairness not everything he did was wrong. Just my opinion.

I've got no idea if there was any wrong doing in racking up the debt. But isn't the current position a simple gamble - hold out for as much as much as he can now while the club is still in existence (10 mill is worthwhile ?), or take the chance that he may get nothing if the club goes into admin.

Before I'm accused of being negative - I'm not saying the club will go into admin, but wouldn't that be Sam's thinking ?

Your half right as it also works the other way, VT can also hold out to see how much he can knock off the £10m/£24m.

Agred Tony - But won't this reverse if we are getting closer to the prem ?

Probably. There was an excellent thread on CCMB about this recently and the OP (Blue Plato) theorised that once we reached the Premier League, VT would be happy to pay Langston off with the full £24m amount.

I've got no idea if there was any wrong doing in racking up the debt. But isn't the current position a simple gamble - hold out for as much as much as he can now while the club is still in existence (10 mill is worthwhile ?), or take the chance that he may get nothing if the club goes into admin.

Before I'm accused of being negative - I'm not saying the club will go into admin, but wouldn't that be Sam's thinking ?

Your half right as it also works the other way, VT can also hold out to see how much he can knock off the £10m/£24m.

Agred Tony - But won't this reverse if we are getting closer to the prem ?

Probably. There was an excellent thread on CCMB about this recently and the OP (Blue Plato) theorised that once we reached the Premier League, VT would be happy to pay Langston off with the full £24m amount.

http://www.ccmb.co.uk/fudforum/index.ph ... rt=0&rid=0

I've got no idea if there was any wrong doing in racking up the debt. But isn't the current position a simple gamble - hold out for as much as much as he can now while the club is still in existence (10 mill is worthwhile ?), or take the chance that he may get nothing if the club goes into admin.

Before I'm accused of being negative - I'm not saying the club will go into admin, but wouldn't that be Sam's thinking ?

Your half right as it also works the other way, VT can also hold out to see how much he can knock off the £10m/£24m.

Agred Tony - But won't this reverse if we are getting closer to the prem ?

Probably. There was an excellent thread on CCMB about this recently and the OP (Blue Plato) theorised that once we reached the Premier League, VT would be happy to pay Langston off with the full £24m amount.

HHhmmmm - Now this is pure speculation, but if this did happen (appreciate you are just passing on anothers speculation ), then it could answer the OP that there was no fiddle and the forensic accountants found nothing.

From what VT has done so far I'm sure he wouldn't pay what he has a chance of not paying !! - I'm not wishing to be another year older - but only time will tell

I've got no idea if there was any wrong doing in racking up the debt. But isn't the current position a simple gamble - hold out for as much as much as he can now while the club is still in existence (10 mill is worthwhile ?), or take the chance that he may get nothing if the club goes into admin.

Before I'm accused of being negative - I'm not saying the club will go into admin, but wouldn't that be Sam's thinking ?

Your half right as it also works the other way, VT can also hold out to see how much he can knock off the £10m/£24m.

Agred Tony - But won't this reverse if we are getting closer to the prem ?

Probably. There was an excellent thread on CCMB about this recently and the OP (Blue Plato) theorised that once we reached the Premier League, VT would be happy to pay Langston off with the full £24m amount.

HHhmmmm - Now this is pure speculation, but if this did happen (appreciate you are just passing on anothers speculation ), then it could answer the OP that there was no fiddle and the forensic accountants found nothing.

From what VT has done so far I'm sure he wouldn't pay what he has a chance of not paying !! - I'm not wishing to be another year older - but only time will tell

As I said in another thread though, it may mean that there was some forensic accountant's analysis and it found enough for Sam to accept £10 million now, when he is already supposed to be overdue £24 million plus interest!

Sorry for sounding idiotic but have the FL ever investigated this case? Like could we face any points deductions/fines?

Sorry for sounding idiotic but have the FL ever investigated this case? Like could we face any points deductions/fines?

Schhhhhhh!

out of the club over his time as the owner? I ask the question, as I have always been mystified as to why Langston, an organisation set up by Sam and his family are satisfied to take just £10 million to repay loan notes that totalled £24 million.

The only conclusion I can come to, is that although the club racked up debts of £24 million to City Bank, how legitimate was that £24 million in expenditure on the running of the club and team? Was there too many abnomalities found by the then board of directors? Was it some how syphoned off by the former owner?

I think this is where the introduction of the forensic accountants come in, not to look into the entire £24 million spending, because I think by Langston already reducing their demands to £10 million, this is admission enough that possibly £15 million cannot be legitimately accounted for.

I think that VT was trying to find holes in the remainder of that total, that is the £10 million, maybe the forensic accountants did find further tenuous abnomalities, which has promted VT to squeeze it even further, perhaps this is why the £8 million offer is being made.

The above is certainly one theory, another is Langston are willing to accept £10m because they are boxed in due to the December 2009 agreement (£10m + 2x£5m promotion bonuses).

So the actual settlement figure might be £20m not £10m, but that is dependant on promotion and staying there for at least one season.

So using your theory Sam only fiddled £5m

I think it's safe to say, if/when we get promoted, we will stay there at the minimum for 1 year


I don't get all the negative stuff now towards Sam. Who stood up and said anything negative when we were splashing out record fees in League Two and then League One, without that initial 'debt' we could still be in League Two or One now.

The investment AND debt was welcomed by all, some glorified in the debt if I remember correctly, quoting speculate to accumulate or other cliche sayings.

He did some bad and a lot of good for us, I couldn't imagine having a million quid, let alone losing it, so people saying quite merrily that we should shaft the man who brought us so close to glory more than 10 times that amount. I just can't fathom it.

If Sam had done any wrong doings (apart from some maybe bad decisions), then we would all have heard about it when the forensic accountants were going through every line of accounts and following all the trails.

Obviously they found nothing.

If sam is willing to accept 10 million now and gamble on us reaching the Prem for another 10 million, then we should do that, he's still wiping off 4 million and possibly 14 million if the gamble does not pay off. We should be thanking him for being willing to do that, not trying to scrape another 2 million off him.

if Sam and Langston were two separate companies then there would not be a problem, but as Sam is part of Langston then that is illegal no myth about that

Absolutely wrong sorry. Vincent Tan/Steve Borley/TG/Michael Issacs have all lent CCFC money in the past and/were part of the board of directors when it happened.

Therefore using your theory they have also lent money to themselves, but I don't see anyone locking them up.

Honestly mate you are way off the mark.

Of course its legal to borrow your own money to a company you are a director of.
AND to charge interest on the loan.

But whats the difference between Tan/Borley/TG/Isaacs and Sam....

They didnt try to hide it. It was there in the books, up front and on the table.

Sam tried to deny his involvement with Langstone for years.

Langstone have walked away from £14 million. No Hedge fund or anything else
would ever do that. Surely you must have your suspicions?

"Personally I don't subscribe to this SH fiddled anything he just made some poor decisions, wrong decisions which have cost him and will continue to cost him until this is settled. As he said in that interview back in July 200"

You may not sunscribe to the notion that anything untoward was done with the finances, however, the facts are that a former owner is willing to take a hit on legitimate loan notes to the tune of £14 million. This decision on top of the fact that he has an agreement to have the whole amount repaid in 4 years time. That just does not add up. I wouldnt take that deal and I suspect nor would most.

It's my belief that Sam will never see the original £24 million, even if it gets to December 2016 deadline and we were in the Premier league that's when we would see the sh*t hit the fan with what the various inspections by forensic and ordinary accountants will have uncovered.

Lets just remember that Sam has been willing to except £10 million, for the last 3 years, when Ridsdale was here, I would suggest that the deal struck then and made public was off the back of investigations made at that point.