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

If the forensic accountants found anything then vt and the rest will no doubt keep it close to their chests in case of any court cases. They wont broadcast it to forums or anyone else possibly including sam/langstone

"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.

I think that the question raised by the op asking did SH fiddle this Langston debt is one that I will never subscribe to because that money was advanced to the club by Citibank, and when they called the loan in SH / Langston repaid Citibank by means of new but unsecured loans. The club accounts were audited during the time period Citibank were advancing these loans and no questions were ever raised by the auditors so, in my opinion, it is a big jump to make now to suggest that there was any wrongdoing on behalf of SH, bad business decisions yes but underhand no.

In 2006 the Langston loans, £24m, were renegotiated with the loans split to £9m of stadium naming rights and a remaining captial sum of £15m and it was only the capital sum which attracts interest. It is my understanding that there was a quid pro quo in this agreement that in exchange for the naming rights Langston would recieve a one off £5m payment should the club be promoted to the PL. Any income the club received for naming rights before September 2016, to a maximum of £9m, would go to Langston but after that date the £9m or lower balance would disappear and any income received would be the clubs.

As a result the Langston debt from that time is £15m plus interest and as part of that agreement the club was not obliged to make any interest only payments before September 2016.

As I see this when SH / Langston say they are prepared to accept £10m plus the £5m promotion bonus they are not actually writing off as much money as some think, and as the debt is unsecured and without VT the club is likely insolvent getting £10m plus a £5m promotion bonus probably represents as much as 50p in the £. Far Far higher than any amount than they would likely receive should the club enter administration. Remember they still have 4 years to earn money from Stadium naming rights and if I were SH / Langston I would have someone working day and night on that one.

It's all about opinions and mine is that SH has not done anything inappropriate he just made bad decisions, the Langston unsecured thing was thr worst, and maybe just now he will take £10m plus the chance of £5m promotion bonus to get rid of the whole thing. Remember he is a multi millionaire and although writing off this amount of money will hurt maybe he just wants rid and will take the hit.

Just my opinion.

i thought it was 10 million where the f**k has this bonus come from annis was defo that all it would take was 10 million and when the malaysians tried to negotiate the payment terms he said they were the ones moving the goal posts now it seems sam / langstone are now trying to get more

i thought it was 10 million where the f**k has this bonus come from annis was defo that all it would take was 10 million and when the malaysians tried to negotiate the payment terms he said they were the ones moving the goal posts now it seems sam / langstone are now trying to get more

Not true Steve, the article that appeared in last weeks paper was not factually correct, it was in part correct but not 100% correct.

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.

Bing Bang.

Sam Hammam is a madman, an idiot. Here is a man that is accepting the possibility of personal financial hit to get a deal done that in my opinion benefits our club.

Show the man respect and stop trying to wipe off more money than he has already compromised on.

The debt is £15million capital, accruing interest of 7%, there is £9million for naming rights and a £5million bonus on promotion, add these up and we get a figure of approximately £37million to date and there is still 4 years to run for the interest to carry on growing.

VT should deal now at £10million and pay the £5million promotion bonus as and when it may happen, for the best interest of this club.

I wholeheartedly believe that the Sam Hammam deserves the Life Presidency position.

i thought it was 10 million where the f**k has this bonus come from annis was defo that all it would take was 10 million and when the malaysians tried to negotiate the payment terms he said they were the ones moving the goal posts now it seems sam / langstone are now trying to get more

Not true Steve, the article that appeared in last weeks paper was not factually correct, it was in part correct but not 100% correct.

Thats fair if they were incorrect but the amount of times Annis has stated that it was just £10 million and slandering the malaysians for moving the goal poasts has brought up more doubts

i thought it was 10 million where the f**k has this bonus come from annis was defo that all it would take was 10 million and when the malaysians tried to negotiate the payment terms he said they were the ones moving the goal posts now it seems sam / langstone are now trying to get more

Not true Steve, the article that appeared in last weeks paper was not factually correct, it was in part correct but not 100% correct.

Thats fair if they were incorrect but the amount of times Annis has stated that it was just £10 million and slandering the malaysians for moving the goal poasts has brought up more doubts

The capital of the debt is £15million plus 7% interest accruing and there is a real possibility of settling that for £10million.

The £5million bonus is and always has been part of negotiations, it is even in one of the three recent offers made to Langston.

If VT deals on the £10milliin plus £5million promotion bonus, the club will be saving itself more than 50% of what is currently owed.

And the club will receive all monies received from naming rights which at this moment would go to Langston.

i thought it was 10 million where the f**k has this bonus come from annis was defo that all it would take was 10 million and when the malaysians tried to negotiate the payment terms he said they were the ones moving the goal posts now it seems sam / langstone are now trying to get more

Not true Steve, the article that appeared in last weeks paper was not factually correct, it was in part correct but not 100% correct.

Thats fair if they were incorrect but the amount of times Annis has stated that it was just £10 million and slandering the malaysians for moving the goal poasts has brought up more doubts

The capital of the debt is £15million plus 7% interest accruing and there is a real possibility of settling that for £10million.

The £5million bonus is and always has been part of negotiations, it is even in one of the three recent offers made to Langston.

If VT deals on the £10milliin plus £5million promotion bonus, the club will be saving itself more than 50% of what is currently owed.

And the club will receive all monies received from naming rights which at this moment would go to Langston.

I don't think SH 'fiddled' money out of the club, purely because I don't think it's possible to do that out of a football club. If it was possible for him or any owner to do that, other wise loads of clubs would be profitable with "honest"/"passionate"/whatever. A close look would show that football clubs are not run that way.

The only real way to make money from a football club. Sell them. I would doubt VT will ever make close to the money when he eventually sells us (complete asset stripping aside).

But do you think SH would react badly if there was a luke warm reception to him if he was announced as present in his life presidency role?

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.

Bing Bang.

Sam Hammam is a madman, an idiot. Here is a man that is accepting the possibility of personal financial hit to get a deal done that in my opinion benefits our club.

Show the man respect and stop trying to wipe off more money than he has already compromised on.

The debt is £15million capital, accruing interest of 7%, there is £9million for naming rights and a £5million bonus on promotion, add these up and we get a figure of approximately £37million to date and there is still 4 years to run for the interest to carry on growing.

VT should deal now at £10million and pay the £5million promotion bonus as and when it may happen, for the best interest of this club.

I wholeheartedly believe that the Sam Hammam deserves the Life Presidency position.

You would say that anyway as your his friend But the majority woudnt want him near our club again

i thought it was 10 million where the f**k has this bonus come from annis was defo that all it would take was 10 million and when the malaysians tried to negotiate the payment terms he said they were the ones moving the goal posts now it seems sam / langstone are now trying to get more

Not true Steve, the article that appeared in last weeks paper was not factually correct, it was in part correct but not 100% correct.

Thats fair if they were incorrect but the amount of times Annis has stated that it was just £10 million and slandering the malaysians for moving the goal poasts has brought up more doubts

The capital of the debt is £15million plus 7% interest accruing and there is a real possibility of settling that for £10million.

The £5million bonus is and always has been part of negotiations, it is even in one of the three recent offers made to Langston.

If VT deals on the £10milliin plus £5million promotion bonus, the club will be saving itself more than 50% of what is currently owed.

And the club will receive all monies received from naming rights which at this moment would go to Langston.

I don't think SH 'fiddled' money out of the club, purely because I don't think it's possible to do that out of a football club. If it was possible for him or any owner to do that, other wise loads of clubs would be profitable with "honest"/"passionate"/whatever. A close look would show that football clubs are not run that way.

The only real way to make money from a football club. Sell them. I would doubt VT will ever make close to the money when he eventually sells us (complete asset stripping aside).

But do you think SH would react badly if there was a luke warm reception to him if he was announced as present in his life presidency role?

Sam Hammam has not fiddled this football club at all.

Sam realises and accepts that many fans do not hold him in the highest regard, despite me trying to convince him otherwise, that is the honest truth.

Everyone must remember that for 6 years Sam has never spoken out, despite certain headlines stating otherwise, the story has been peddled that Sam and Langston are bad guys and I believe because Sam has never given his side of the story publicly that has gone against him in the eyes of many.

If there is a successful conclusion to the current negotiations between VT and Sam then I hope that what Sam is sacrificing is credited and he is afforded the recognition for the part he will have played and I really do hope that the truth will be told and fans will be able to make an informed decision rather than one based on the stories told by Peter Ridsdale.

im not a big fan of sam, and even if he is or isnt langston if VT gets this deal of 15 million less i will have a little more respect for him.... kind of

i thought it was 10 million where the f**k has this bonus come from annis was defo that all it would take was 10 million and when the malaysians tried to negotiate the payment terms he said they were the ones moving the goal posts now it seems sam / langstone are now trying to get more

Not true Steve, the article that appeared in last weeks paper was not factually correct, it was in part correct but not 100% correct.

Thats fair if they were incorrect but the amount of times Annis has stated that it was just £10 million and slandering the malaysians for moving the goal poasts has brought up more doubts

The capital of the debt is £15million plus 7% interest accruing and there is a real possibility of settling that for £10million.

The £5million bonus is and always has been part of negotiations, it is even in one of the three recent offers made to Langston.

If VT deals on the £10milliin plus £5million promotion bonus, the club will be saving itself more than 50% of what is currently owed.

And the club will receive all monies received from naming rights which at this moment would go to Langston.

I don't think SH 'fiddled' money out of the club, purely because I don't think it's possible to do that out of a football club. If it was possible for him or any owner to do that, other wise loads of clubs would be profitable with "honest"/"passionate"/whatever. A close look would show that football clubs are not run that way.

The only real way to make money from a football club. Sell them. I would doubt VT will ever make close to the money when he eventually sells us (complete asset stripping aside).

But do you think SH would react badly if there was a luke warm reception to him if he was announced as present in his life presidency role?

Sam Hammam has not fiddled this football club at all.

I really don't understand how someone would come to the conclusion that he did. How would it even be done?

In my view as a fairly objective observer the reason for the £10mil ball park figure from Langston's point of view is:

The nature of settling unsecured debt.
A desire to see this issue settled
SH's desire to have a affiliation with Cardiff a club he has emotional attachment too, but in a non money capacity and purely as a 'fan' (for lack of a better word).

Not true Steve, the article that appeared in last weeks paper was not factually correct, it was in part correct but not 100% correct.

Thats fair if they were incorrect but the amount of times Annis has stated that it was just £10 million and slandering the malaysians for moving the goal poasts has brought up more doubts

The capital of the debt is £15million plus 7% interest accruing and there is a real possibility of settling that for £10million.

The £5million bonus is and always has been part of negotiations, it is even in one of the three recent offers made to Langston.

If VT deals on the £10milliin plus £5million promotion bonus, the club will be saving itself more than 50% of what is currently owed.

And the club will receive all monies received from naming rights which at this moment would go to Langston.

I don't think SH 'fiddled' money out of the club, purely because I don't think it's possible to do that out of a football club. If it was possible for him or any owner to do that, other wise loads of clubs would be profitable with "honest"/"passionate"/whatever. A close look would show that football clubs are not run that way.

The only real way to make money from a football club. Sell them. I would doubt VT will ever make close to the money when he eventually sells us (complete asset stripping aside).

But do you think SH would react badly if there was a luke warm reception to him if he was announced as present in his life presidency role?

Sam Hammam has not fiddled this football club at all.

I really don't understand how someone would come to the conclusion that he did. How would it even be done?

In my view as a fairly objective observer the reason for the £10mil ball park figure from Langston's point of view is:

The nature of settling unsecured debt.
A desire to see this issue settled
SH's desire to have a affiliation with Cardiff a club he has emotional attachment too, but in a non money capacity and purely as a 'fan' (for lack of a better word).

Also a desire to see 'The Dream' realised albeit not with him at the helm but at least the dream can be realised.

Also Sam is clear that the deal for VT to turn loans into shares is the absolute most important part of the whole rebranding and negotiations.

If we start off with a basic factor in any debate to do with the loan notes and Sams involvement, which is that, Sam has repeatedly protested that he is not Langston, and only connected as an intermediery. Then are you Carl, or anybody else seriously trying to convince yourselves and us that an independent Hedge fund has lent the club £24 million pounds!!! without any security and without any sureity that they will even get the money back let alone make any money on the loan?

No, I don't think you believe it, yet that is what Sam is asking you to believe. If you choose not to believe it, which any sane person should do, then Sam is obviously lying. For what reason and to what ends, I don't know, but it is important enough, for him to lie about for the past 6 years.

This one issue, never mind anything else brings the whole legitimacy of Sams character and dealings into question.

The thing is, when PMG took over and Ridsdale was in charge, at that point I could see the logic in Sam willing to accept less return and take a hit, as he would have known that these backers, were relatively small time, had no interest or real financila power, to pay him off or move the club forward, even if they wanted.

Now, however, we have backers that are worth a billion dollars, they have comitted somewhat, so undoubtedly have the resources to pay off Sam, without even denting their purse, yet knowing this Sam does'nt revert back to wanting his full amount, that as you say he was legitimately owed, he instead is happy with a fraction of it.

I'm sorry, I don't buy it

im not a big fan of sam, and even if he is or isnt langston if VT gets this deal of 15 million less i will have a little more respect for him.... kind of

So would you accept it Bluebird, if you had information that the amount spent by Sam's regime was far, far less than the £24 million debts, that accrued and appeared in the accounts?

What if it was found, through investigation that all sorts of holes appeared in those accounts through stricter scrutiny. Lets say, that taking everything into account they could only account for £10 million, worth of debt, and when questioned, vague answers were given.
How would you feel then, would you still be happy to give Sam £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.

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.

Bing Bang.

Sam Hammam is a madman, an idiot. Here is a man that is accepting the possibility of personal financial hit to get a deal done that in my opinion benefits our club.

Show the man respect and stop trying to wipe off more money than he has already compromised on.

The debt is £15million capital, accruing interest of 7%, there is £9million for naming rights and a £5million bonus on promotion, add these up and we get a figure of approximately £37million to date and there is still 4 years to run for the interest to carry on growing.

VT should deal now at £10million and pay the £5million promotion bonus as and when it may happen, for the best interest of this club.

I wholeheartedly believe that the Sam Hammam deserves the Life Presidency position.

Carl

how does sam take a personal hit if he is not langston.

Woops.

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.

Bing Bang.

Sam Hammam is a madman, an idiot. Here is a man that is accepting the possibility of personal financial hit to get a deal done that in my opinion benefits our club.

Show the man respect and stop trying to wipe off more money than he has already compromised on.

The debt is £15million capital, accruing interest of 7%, there is £9million for naming rights and a £5million bonus on promotion, add these up and we get a figure of approximately £37million to date and there is still 4 years to run for the interest to carry on growing.

VT should deal now at £10million and pay the £5million promotion bonus as and when it may happen, for the best interest of this club.

I wholeheartedly believe that the Sam Hammam deserves the Life Presidency position.

Carl

how does sam take a personal hit if he is not langston.

good question,any answers

Silence is golden, as they say!
Why not star another thread up to deflect from the awkward questions

Please, Sam IS Langston

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7290681.stm

Please, Sam IS Langston

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7290681.stm

The clubs barrister accused Sam of being behind Langston, and I believe the judge even suggested that Sam was probably behind Langston, but to my knowledge the man has never admitted he is, in fact I'm sure in every statement he has vehemently denied it.

Please, Sam IS Langston

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7290681.stm

The clubs barrister accused Sam of being behind Langston, and I believe the judge even suggested that Sam was probably behind Langston, but to my knowledge the man has never admitted he is, in fact I'm sure in every statement he has vehemently denied it.

sam is langstone and has done something dodgy runing these debts up there is more to this than we ,carl the fans leader or anyone else knows only sam and vt know what has gone on

Please, Sam IS Langston

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7290681.stm

The clubs barrister accused Sam of being behind Langston, and I believe the judge even suggested that Sam was probably behind Langston, but to my knowledge the man has never admitted he is, in fact I'm sure in every statement he has vehemently denied it.

sam is langstone and has done something dodgy runing these debts up there is more to this than we ,carl the fans leader or anyone else knows only sam and vt know what has gone on

I would pretty much stake my house on the fact that most of the current board including the departed Ridsdale, know all there is to know about thw whole situation. I would go as far as to say, that a few of those board members, would not wan't everything out in the open, as they would also be implicated.

As has been posted. how on earth can Sam have taken
this personal hit if it wasn't his money?

Of course he is langstone

The only real question is...

Why is he denying it?

That is the top and bottom of the matter.

I am not a lawyer or a high court judge but suspect
there may well be legal implications to him if he admits it...

And Tan knows it

As has been posted. how on earth can Sam have taken
this personal hit if it wasn't his money?

Of course he is langstone

The only real question is...

Why is he denying it?

That is the top and bottom of the matter.

I am not a lawyer or a high court judge but suspect
there may well be legal implications to him if he admits it...

And Tan knows it