FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN THE POLITICS OF OUR CLUB

Carl

I can`t respond to your latest post by the "quote" method as there are already 6 imbedded quotes in the relevant post so the system won`t let me , so I have replied here. Apologies if that makes it difficult for others to follow the thread.

You now raise a point about a "third agreement" which confuses me. You have yourself stated on several occasions that the agreement you refer to was drafted by Ridsdale but never formally signed and therefore never came into existence. I have also stated that I agree with your view on this, But you now seem to be bringing this document "back into play" as it were. Why?

To try (again) to make my position crystal clear.

I am of the opinion that there is only one legal debt agreement in place between the club and Langstone. This is the agreement in which the debt is repayable by the end of 2016 and there is no obligation on the part of the club to make interest or capital repayments in the interim period. I am also of the opinion that there is no other "penalty" element payable to Langstone as a consequence of the club not taking up its option to settle the debt by the end of 2010.
The basis of my opinion is that this is exactly what was said and clarified to shareholders (and yourself) at the recent EGM by the club board in response to specific questionning on the subject - no waffle , no ambiguity , just a categoric staement.

Your opinion is that another agreement exists which gives Sam Hammam/Langstone the right to demand repayment of the debt immediately and that also some form of "penalty payment" is also due to Langstone.
Yet you keep avoiding the crucial question as to what your opinion is based on - i.e. have you actually seen a legal document to this effect signed by the club , or whether you are basing your view on a third party telling you that such a document exists but who is unable/unwilling to disclose it publicly.
No-one is asking to you breach a confidentiality and say it was Sam or someone else that showed you such a document , or told you it existed , just to say whether you have actually seen such a thing or are just relying on hearsay as a basis for your opinion.
If you could just clarify this point , it would make it far easier for readers of this board to form a balanced opinion of their own on what the actual position is.

Keith

Carl

I can`t respond to your latest post by the "quote" method as there are already 6 imbedded quotes in the relevant post so the system won`t let me , so I have replied here. Apologies if that makes it difficult for others to follow the thread.

You now raise a point about a "third agreement" which confuses me. You have yourself stated on several occasions that the agreement you refer to was drafted by Ridsdale but never formally signed and therefore never came into existence. I have also stated that I agree with your view on this, But you now seem to be bringing this document "back into play" as it were. Why?

To try (again) to make my position crystal clear.

I am of the opinion that there is only one legal debt agreement in place between the club and Langstone. This is the agreement in which the debt is repayable by the end of 2016 and there is no obligation on the part of the club to make interest or capital repayments in the interim period. I am also of the opinion that there is no other "penalty" element payable to Langstone as a consequence of the club not taking up its option to settle the debt by the end of 2010.
The basis of my opinion is that this is exactly what was said and clarified to shareholders (and yourself) at the recent EGM by the club board in response to specific questionning on the subject - no waffle , no ambiguity , just a categoric staement.

Your opinion is that another agreement exists which gives Sam Hammam/Langstone the right to demand repayment of the debt immediately and that also some form of "penalty payment" is also due to Langstone.
Yet you keep avoiding the crucial question as to what your opinion is based on - i.e. have you actually seen a legal document to this effect signed by the club , or whether you are basing your view on a third party telling you that such a document exists but who is unable/unwilling to disclose it publicly.
No-one is asking to you breach a confidentiality and say it was Sam or someone else that showed you such a document , or told you it existed , just to say whether you have actually seen such a thing or are just relying on hearsay as a basis for your opinion.
If you could just clarify this point , it would make it far easier for readers of this board to form a balanced opinion of their own on what the actual position is.

Keith

Keith I am not trying to confuse the issue but as I have highlighted in your post above, if there was never an agreement that was signed off then where did the option of settling at a reduced amount by the end of 2010 come from?

I was there as you point out at the EGM and I do recall that the FD stated that the club did not take up the option of settling at the end of 2010, why is there a need to discuss the 2010 agreement if it was never signed off?

Carl

I can`t respond to your latest post by the "quote" method as there are already 6 imbedded quotes in the relevant post so the system won`t let me , so I have replied here. Apologies if that makes it difficult for others to follow the thread.

You now raise a point about a "third agreement" which confuses me. You have yourself stated on several occasions that the agreement you refer to was drafted by Ridsdale but never formally signed and therefore never came into existence. I have also stated that I agree with your view on this, But you now seem to be bringing this document "back into play" as it were. Why?

To try (again) to make my position crystal clear.

I am of the opinion that there is only one legal debt agreement in place between the club and Langstone. This is the agreement in which the debt is repayable by the end of 2016 and there is no obligation on the part of the club to make interest or capital repayments in the interim period. I am also of the opinion that there is no other "penalty" element payable to Langstone as a consequence of the club not taking up its option to settle the debt by the end of 2010.
The basis of my opinion is that this is exactly what was said and clarified to shareholders (and yourself) at the recent EGM by the club board in response to specific questionning on the subject - no waffle , no ambiguity , just a categoric staement.

Your opinion is that another agreement exists which gives Sam Hammam/Langstone the right to demand repayment of the debt immediately and that also some form of "penalty payment" is also due to Langstone.
Yet you keep avoiding the crucial question as to what your opinion is based on - i.e. have you actually seen a legal document to this effect signed by the club , or whether you are basing your view on a third party telling you that such a document exists but who is unable/unwilling to disclose it publicly.
No-one is asking to you breach a confidentiality and say it was Sam or someone else that showed you such a document , or told you it existed , just to say whether you have actually seen such a thing or are just relying on hearsay as a basis for your opinion.
If you could just clarify this point , it would make it far easier for readers of this board to form a balanced opinion of their own on what the actual position is.

Keith

Keith I am not trying to confuse the issue but as I have highlighted in your post above, if there was never an agreement that was signed off then where did the option of settling at a reduced amount by the end of 2010 come from?

I was there as you point out at the EGM and I do recall that the FD stated that the club did not take up the option of settling at the end of 2010, why is there a need to discuss the 2010 agreement if it was never signed off?

This is even more confusing!!

Go back to your earlier post when you comment on "number 3". There you clearly state that there was no agreement in which there was a sliding scale to settle the debt at £11m , £12m etc as time elapsed , and this was the point I agreed with.

I have never said there was an agreement that lapsed on 31 December 2010 , in fact I have said the exact opposite.What I have said is that there is no penalty clause arising from the club not taking up its option to settle earlier and asked on what basis you consider this to be inaccurate , regularly say that there is such a clause and the club board to have therefore lied to the EGM.

So , in simple terms ,on what basis do you believe that the board has lied to shareholders? Because , if there is any truth in the claims of yourself and others on this board that these penalties do exist then that is saying that the board have lied at a formal shareholders meeting and are therefore in some trouble legally.

Have you and others saying the board is wrong actually seen a signed legal document showing this to be the case , or are you reliant on someone just telling you it exists?

Carl

I can`t respond to your latest post by the "quote" method as there are already 6 imbedded quotes in the relevant post so the system won`t let me , so I have replied here. Apologies if that makes it difficult for others to follow the thread.

You now raise a point about a "third agreement" which confuses me. You have yourself stated on several occasions that the agreement you refer to was drafted by Ridsdale but never formally signed and therefore never came into existence. I have also stated that I agree with your view on this, But you now seem to be bringing this document "back into play" as it were. Why?

To try (again) to make my position crystal clear.

I am of the opinion that there is only one legal debt agreement in place between the club and Langstone. This is the agreement in which the debt is repayable by the end of 2016 and there is no obligation on the part of the club to make interest or capital repayments in the interim period. I am also of the opinion that there is no other "penalty" element payable to Langstone as a consequence of the club not taking up its option to settle the debt by the end of 2010.
The basis of my opinion is that this is exactly what was said and clarified to shareholders (and yourself) at the recent EGM by the club board in response to specific questionning on the subject - no waffle , no ambiguity , just a categoric staement.

Your opinion is that another agreement exists which gives Sam Hammam/Langstone the right to demand repayment of the debt immediately and that also some form of "penalty payment" is also due to Langstone.
Yet you keep avoiding the crucial question as to what your opinion is based on - i.e. have you actually seen a legal document to this effect signed by the club , or whether you are basing your view on a third party telling you that such a document exists but who is unable/unwilling to disclose it publicly.
No-one is asking to you breach a confidentiality and say it was Sam or someone else that showed you such a document , or told you it existed , just to say whether you have actually seen such a thing or are just relying on hearsay as a basis for your opinion.
If you could just clarify this point , it would make it far easier for readers of this board to form a balanced opinion of their own on what the actual position is.

Keith

Keith I am not trying to confuse the issue but as I have highlighted in your post above, if there was never an agreement that was signed off then where did the option of settling at a reduced amount by the end of 2010 come from?

I was there as you point out at the EGM and I do recall that the FD stated that the club did not take up the option of settling at the end of 2010, why is there a need to discuss the 2010 agreement if it was never signed off?

This is even more confusing!!

Go back to your earlier post when you comment on "number 3". There you clearly state that there was no agreement in which there was a sliding scale to settle the debt at £11m , £12m etc as time elapsed , and this was the point I agreed with.

I have never said there was an agreement that lapsed on 31 December 2010 , in fact I have said the exact opposite.What I have said is that there is no penalty clause arising from the club not taking up its option to settle earlier and asked on what basis you consider this to be inaccurate , regularly say that there is such a clause and the club board to have therefore lied to the EGM.

So , in simple terms ,on what basis do you believe that the board has lied to shareholders? Because , if there is any truth in the claims of yourself and others on this board that these penalties do exist then that is saying that the board have lied at a formal shareholders meeting and are therefore in some trouble legally.

Have you and others saying the board is wrong actually seen a signed legal document showing this to be the case , or are you reliant on someone just telling you it exists?

Keith did Doug Lee state in the EGM that the revised December 2009 agreement had expired on 31 December 2010.

So my question is if there was never a signed off agreement why was it mentioned at the EGM by the Finance Director?

Carl

I can`t respond to your latest post by the "quote" method as there are already 6 imbedded quotes in the relevant post so the system won`t let me , so I have replied here. Apologies if that makes it difficult for others to follow the thread.

You now raise a point about a "third agreement" which confuses me. You have yourself stated on several occasions that the agreement you refer to was drafted by Ridsdale but never formally signed and therefore never came into existence. I have also stated that I agree with your view on this, But you now seem to be bringing this document "back into play" as it were. Why?

To try (again) to make my position crystal clear.

I am of the opinion that there is only one legal debt agreement in place between the club and Langstone. This is the agreement in which the debt is repayable by the end of 2016 and there is no obligation on the part of the club to make interest or capital repayments in the interim period. I am also of the opinion that there is no other "penalty" element payable to Langstone as a consequence of the club not taking up its option to settle the debt by the end of 2010.
The basis of my opinion is that this is exactly what was said and clarified to shareholders (and yourself) at the recent EGM by the club board in response to specific questionning on the subject - no waffle , no ambiguity , just a categoric staement.

Your opinion is that another agreement exists which gives Sam Hammam/Langstone the right to demand repayment of the debt immediately and that also some form of "penalty payment" is also due to Langstone.
Yet you keep avoiding the crucial question as to what your opinion is based on - i.e. have you actually seen a legal document to this effect signed by the club , or whether you are basing your view on a third party telling you that such a document exists but who is unable/unwilling to disclose it publicly.
No-one is asking to you breach a confidentiality and say it was Sam or someone else that showed you such a document , or told you it existed , just to say whether you have actually seen such a thing or are just relying on hearsay as a basis for your opinion.
If you could just clarify this point , it would make it far easier for readers of this board to form a balanced opinion of their own on what the actual position is.

Keith

Keith I am not trying to confuse the issue but as I have highlighted in your post above, if there was never an agreement that was signed off then where did the option of settling at a reduced amount by the end of 2010 come from?

I was there as you point out at the EGM and I do recall that the FD stated that the club did not take up the option of settling at the end of 2010, why is there a need to discuss the 2010 agreement if it was never signed off?

This is even more confusing!!

Go back to your earlier post when you comment on "number 3". There you clearly state that there was no agreement in which there was a sliding scale to settle the debt at £11m , £12m etc as time elapsed , and this was the point I agreed with.

I have never said there was an agreement that lapsed on 31 December 2010 , in fact I have said the exact opposite.What I have said is that there is no penalty clause arising from the club not taking up its option to settle earlier and asked on what basis you consider this to be inaccurate , regularly say that there is such a clause and the club board to have therefore lied to the EGM.

So , in simple terms ,on what basis do you believe that the board has lied to shareholders? Because , if there is any truth in the claims of yourself and others on this board that these penalties do exist then that is saying that the board have lied at a formal shareholders meeting and are therefore in some trouble legally.

Have you and others saying the board is wrong actually seen a signed legal document showing this to be the case , or are you reliant on someone just telling you it exists?

Keith did Doug Lee state in the EGM that the revised December 2009 agreement had expired on 31 December 2010.

So my question is if there was never a signed off agreement why was it mentioned at the EGM by the Finance Director?

Carl, stop avoiding and just answer his question. Have you seen a document that relates to penalty payments, its simple either you have or you haven't!

If you haven't how do you know such document exists???

Carl

I can`t respond to your latest post by the "quote" method as there are already 6 imbedded quotes in the relevant post so the system won`t let me , so I have replied here. Apologies if that makes it difficult for others to follow the thread.

You now raise a point about a "third agreement" which confuses me. You have yourself stated on several occasions that the agreement you refer to was drafted by Ridsdale but never formally signed and therefore never came into existence. I have also stated that I agree with your view on this, But you now seem to be bringing this document "back into play" as it were. Why?

To try (again) to make my position crystal clear.

I am of the opinion that there is only one legal debt agreement in place between the club and Langstone. This is the agreement in which the debt is repayable by the end of 2016 and there is no obligation on the part of the club to make interest or capital repayments in the interim period. I am also of the opinion that there is no other "penalty" element payable to Langstone as a consequence of the club not taking up its option to settle the debt by the end of 2010.
The basis of my opinion is that this is exactly what was said and clarified to shareholders (and yourself) at the recent EGM by the club board in response to specific questionning on the subject - no waffle , no ambiguity , just a categoric staement.

Your opinion is that another agreement exists which gives Sam Hammam/Langstone the right to demand repayment of the debt immediately and that also some form of "penalty payment" is also due to Langstone.
Yet you keep avoiding the crucial question as to what your opinion is based on - i.e. have you actually seen a legal document to this effect signed by the club , or whether you are basing your view on a third party telling you that such a document exists but who is unable/unwilling to disclose it publicly.
No-one is asking to you breach a confidentiality and say it was Sam or someone else that showed you such a document , or told you it existed , just to say whether you have actually seen such a thing or are just relying on hearsay as a basis for your opinion.
If you could just clarify this point , it would make it far easier for readers of this board to form a balanced opinion of their own on what the actual position is.

Keith

Keith I am not trying to confuse the issue but as I have highlighted in your post above, if there was never an agreement that was signed off then where did the option of settling at a reduced amount by the end of 2010 come from?

I was there as you point out at the EGM and I do recall that the FD stated that the club did not take up the option of settling at the end of 2010, why is there a need to discuss the 2010 agreement if it was never signed off?

This is even more confusing!!

Go back to your earlier post when you comment on "number 3". There you clearly state that there was no agreement in which there was a sliding scale to settle the debt at £11m , £12m etc as time elapsed , and this was the point I agreed with.

I have never said there was an agreement that lapsed on 31 December 2010 , in fact I have said the exact opposite.What I have said is that there is no penalty clause arising from the club not taking up its option to settle earlier and asked on what basis you consider this to be inaccurate , regularly say that there is such a clause and the club board to have therefore lied to the EGM.

So , in simple terms ,on what basis do you believe that the board has lied to shareholders? Because , if there is any truth in the claims of yourself and others on this board that these penalties do exist then that is saying that the board have lied at a formal shareholders meeting and are therefore in some trouble legally.

Have you and others saying the board is wrong actually seen a signed legal document showing this to be the case , or are you reliant on someone just telling you it exists?

Keith did Doug Lee state in the EGM that the revised December 2009 agreement had expired on 31 December 2010.

So my question is if there was never a signed off agreement why was it mentioned at the EGM by the Finance Director?

Carl, stop avoiding and just answer his question. Have you seen a document that relates to penalty payments, its simple either you have or you haven't!

If you haven't how do you know such document exists???

Natman this thread is not about whether or not I have seen documents, it was started because of a quote made by Vince Alm when he said "you don't have to be Einstein to work out that legal action will happen".

Now it seems that there is disagreement over whether or not a third loan agreement was made or not, I am asking Keith whether or not a third agreement was ever in place and if that agreement has lapsed, Keith responded quite clearly stating that he does not believe that a third agreement lapsed or that the third agreement was ever signed off.

So I will ask again :

Did Doug Lee (Finance Director at CCFC) say in the last EGM that "the revised December 2009 agreement had expired on 31 December 2010".

Quite simple really - if the third agreement was never signed off that would mean it was never a bona fide legal agreement si therefore why was it even spoken of by the Finance Director?

Are you able to answer that one Natman, in Keith's absence?

Carl

I can`t respond to your latest post by the "quote" method as there are already 6 imbedded quotes in the relevant post so the system won`t let me , so I have replied here. Apologies if that makes it difficult for others to follow the thread.

You now raise a point about a "third agreement" which confuses me. You have yourself stated on several occasions that the agreement you refer to was drafted by Ridsdale but never formally signed and therefore never came into existence. I have also stated that I agree with your view on this, But you now seem to be bringing this document "back into play" as it were. Why?

To try (again) to make my position crystal clear.

I am of the opinion that there is only one legal debt agreement in place between the club and Langstone. This is the agreement in which the debt is repayable by the end of 2016 and there is no obligation on the part of the club to make interest or capital repayments in the interim period. I am also of the opinion that there is no other "penalty" element payable to Langstone as a consequence of the club not taking up its option to settle the debt by the end of 2010.
The basis of my opinion is that this is exactly what was said and clarified to shareholders (and yourself) at the recent EGM by the club board in response to specific questionning on the subject - no waffle , no ambiguity , just a categoric staement.

Your opinion is that another agreement exists which gives Sam Hammam/Langstone the right to demand repayment of the debt immediately and that also some form of "penalty payment" is also due to Langstone.
Yet you keep avoiding the crucial question as to what your opinion is based on - i.e. have you actually seen a legal document to this effect signed by the club , or whether you are basing your view on a third party telling you that such a document exists but who is unable/unwilling to disclose it publicly.
No-one is asking to you breach a confidentiality and say it was Sam or someone else that showed you such a document , or told you it existed , just to say whether you have actually seen such a thing or are just relying on hearsay as a basis for your opinion.
If you could just clarify this point , it would make it far easier for readers of this board to form a balanced opinion of their own on what the actual position is.

Keith

Didn't Dave Sugarman write in his blog about the new deal which was created late in 2009. I get the impression Dave Sugarman only deals in facts and not just what someone has told him, does this mean that Dave Sugarman posted on his blog inaccurate information?

Now that would cast doubt on the validity of Dave's future postings regarding such issues. It does concern me that a few blindly follow Dave Sugarman's writings and take them as fact, when in fact Peter Ridsdale was operating him like a puppet. Perhaps Dave saw himself as Peter's information minister.

Carl

I can`t respond to your latest post by the "quote" method as there are already 6 imbedded quotes in the relevant post so the system won`t let me , so I have replied here. Apologies if that makes it difficult for others to follow the thread.

You now raise a point about a "third agreement" which confuses me. You have yourself stated on several occasions that the agreement you refer to was drafted by Ridsdale but never formally signed and therefore never came into existence. I have also stated that I agree with your view on this, But you now seem to be bringing this document "back into play" as it were. Why?

To try (again) to make my position crystal clear.

I am of the opinion that there is only one legal debt agreement in place between the club and Langstone. This is the agreement in which the debt is repayable by the end of 2016 and there is no obligation on the part of the club to make interest or capital repayments in the interim period. I am also of the opinion that there is no other "penalty" element payable to Langstone as a consequence of the club not taking up its option to settle the debt by the end of 2010.
The basis of my opinion is that this is exactly what was said and clarified to shareholders (and yourself) at the recent EGM by the club board in response to specific questionning on the subject - no waffle , no ambiguity , just a categoric staement.

Your opinion is that another agreement exists which gives Sam Hammam/Langstone the right to demand repayment of the debt immediately and that also some form of "penalty payment" is also due to Langstone.
Yet you keep avoiding the crucial question as to what your opinion is based on - i.e. have you actually seen a legal document to this effect signed by the club , or whether you are basing your view on a third party telling you that such a document exists but who is unable/unwilling to disclose it publicly.
No-one is asking to you breach a confidentiality and say it was Sam or someone else that showed you such a document , or told you it existed , just to say whether you have actually seen such a thing or are just relying on hearsay as a basis for your opinion.
If you could just clarify this point , it would make it far easier for readers of this board to form a balanced opinion of their own on what the actual position is.

Keith

Keith I am not trying to confuse the issue but as I have highlighted in your post above, if there was never an agreement that was signed off then where did the option of settling at a reduced amount by the end of 2010 come from?

I was there as you point out at the EGM and I do recall that the FD stated that the club did not take up the option of settling at the end of 2010, why is there a need to discuss the 2010 agreement if it was never signed off?

This is even more confusing!!

Go back to your earlier post when you comment on "number 3". There you clearly state that there was no agreement in which there was a sliding scale to settle the debt at £11m , £12m etc as time elapsed , and this was the point I agreed with.

I have never said there was an agreement that lapsed on 31 December 2010 , in fact I have said the exact opposite.What I have said is that there is no penalty clause arising from the club not taking up its option to settle earlier and asked on what basis you consider this to be inaccurate , regularly say that there is such a clause and the club board to have therefore lied to the EGM.

So , in simple terms ,on what basis do you believe that the board has lied to shareholders? Because , if there is any truth in the claims of yourself and others on this board that these penalties do exist then that is saying that the board have lied at a formal shareholders meeting and are therefore in some trouble legally.

Have you and others saying the board is wrong actually seen a signed legal document showing this to be the case , or are you reliant on someone just telling you it exists?

Keith did Doug Lee state in the EGM that the revised December 2009 agreement had expired on 31 December 2010.

So my question is if there was never a signed off agreement why was it mentioned at the EGM by the Finance Director?

Carl, stop avoiding and just answer his question. Have you seen a document that relates to penalty payments, its simple either you have or you haven't!

If you haven't how do you know such document exists???

Natman this thread is not about whether or not I have seen documents, it was started because of a quote made by Vince Alm when he said "you don't have to be Einstein to work out that legal action will happen".

Now it seems that there is disagreement over whether or not a third loan agreement was made or not, I am asking Keith whether or not a third agreement was ever in place and if that agreement has lapsed, Keith responded quite clearly stating that he does not believe that a third agreement lapsed or that the third agreement was ever signed off.

So I will ask again :

Did Doug Lee (Finance Director at CCFC) say in the last EGM that "the revised December 2009 agreement had expired on 31 December 2010".

Quite simple really - if the third agreement was never signed off that would mean it was never a bona fide legal agreement si therefore why was it even spoken of by the Finance Director?

Are you able to answer that one Natman, in Keith's absence?

Agreement 1 - the one in which nothing is due for repayment until Dec 2016 which has been clearly stated to be the only one in force as at the recent EGM

Agreement 2 - the one where there was an opition on the club`s part to settle the debt for £10m (plus possibly a promotion bonus). The option was not taken by the club , so the agreement lapsed.

Agreement 3 - the one with a sliding scale of settlement , increasing over time which you say was never signed (and I have agreed) after having been drafted by Ridsdale.

So I say , and the club say , that only one agreement is in force.

You say there is another in force with penalty clauses etc (a claim categorically denied by the club) but won`t say on what basis you believe this to be the case.

If you have seen a signed legal document proving the club to have lied , why not say so?
If you have not , but are just relying on what someone (and it may well be someone whose word you trust) has told you is in the document , again why not say so?

Keith did Doug Lee state in the EGM that the revised December 2009 agreement had expired on 31 December 2010.

So my question is if there was never a signed off agreement why was it mentioned at the EGM by the Finance Director?

Carl, stop avoiding and just answer his question. Have you seen a document that relates to penalty payments, its simple either you have or you haven't!

If you haven't how do you know such document exists???

Natman this thread is not about whether or not I have seen documents, it was started because of a quote made by Vince Alm when he said "you don't have to be Einstein to work out that legal action will happen".

Now it seems that there is disagreement over whether or not a third loan agreement was made or not, I am asking Keith whether or not a third agreement was ever in place and if that agreement has lapsed, Keith responded quite clearly stating that he does not believe that a third agreement lapsed or that the third agreement was ever signed off.

So I will ask again :

Did Doug Lee (Finance Director at CCFC) say in the last EGM that "the revised December 2009 agreement had expired on 31 December 2010".

Quite simple really - if the third agreement was never signed off that would mean it was never a bona fide legal agreement si therefore why was it even spoken of by the Finance Director?

Are you able to answer that one Natman, in Keith's absence?

Agreement 1 - the one in which nothing is due for repayment until Dec 2016 which has been clearly stated to be the only one in force as at the recent EGM

Agreement 2 - the one where there was an opition on the club`s part to settle the debt for £10m (plus possibly a promotion bonus). The option was not taken by the club , so the agreement lapsed.

Agreement 3 - the one with a sliding scale of settlement , increasing over time which you say was never signed (and I have agreed) after having been drafted by Ridsdale.

So I say , and the club say , that only one agreement is in force.

You say there is another in force with penalty clauses etc (a claim categorically denied by the club) but won`t say on what basis you believe this to be the case.

If you have seen a signed legal document proving the club to have lied , why not say so?
If you have not , but are just relying on what someone (and it may well be someone whose word you trust) has told you is in the document , again why not say so?

Keith I have not stated otherwise that loan note 2 is in force but you seem to be getting yourself confused, the documents that you keep going on about that I first brought to attention on this forum was the third agreement which at the time you said did not exist, and I have told you on many occasions that the full and final third agreement was never signed but an interim agreement was.

But you say in this thread that there was never a third agreement and the point I am raising is this - it is very simple - if there was never a third agreement then where did the early settlement date and figure come from as they were not part of loan note 2?

And furthermore if there was no third agreement then why did Doug Lee speak of the Dec 31st 2010 being lapsed?

So do you agree that there was a third agreement because throughout this thread you have said there never was?

So if agreement 1 is still in place Keith and nothing has to be paid until 2016 then I think all Carl is asking is as to why when Vince made his comment that nobody said anything contrary to that with regards " legal action " forthcoming ??

So if agreement 1 is still in place Keith and nothing has to be paid until 2016 then I think all Carl is asking is as to why when Vince made his comment that nobody said anything contrary to that with regards " legal action " forthcoming ??

That was the start of the thread Martyn, all I posted was that i was surprised it was said and furthermore that it was not challenged but other posters are twisting the thread.

So if agreement 1 is still in place Keith and nothing has to be paid until 2016 then I think all Carl is asking is as to why when Vince made his comment that nobody said anything contrary to that with regards " legal action " forthcoming ??

That was the start of the thread Martyn, all I posted was that i was surprised it was said and furthermore that it was not challenged but other posters are twisting the thread.

Carl some people are hard work sometimes ...... 5 pages of confusion

So if agreement 1 is still in place Keith and nothing has to be paid until 2016 then I think all Carl is asking is as to why when Vince made his comment that nobody said anything contrary to that with regards " legal action " forthcoming ??

That was the start of the thread Martyn, all I posted was that i was surprised it was said and furthermore that it was not challenged but other posters are twisting the thread.

Carl some people are hard work sometimes ...... 5 pages of confusion

When you look at the first post in this thread is surprising how people come out of the woodwork Martyn

But seriously though it is when people such as Since62 and TLG post information that is not factually correct and a few believe their word as gospel that it confuses the issue as demonstrated in this thread.

Since62 states on this thread that no third agreement was ever signed off so therefore never became enforceable yet the Finance Director at the club clearly stated that the period of the agreement for the third loan note had lapsed, so I want to point out that there was a third agreement to avoid all doubt.

Further to that Dave Sugarman posted the 'details' of the third agreement on his blog because he was told about it by Peter Ridsdale, yet the details of what he posted were not correct which Sugarman later admitted, he back peddled dramatically at a time when Peter Ridsdale was being demonstrated against by the loyal City fans who could see the damage he was causing our club and we who demonstrated had stopped listening to him months previously but Dave was obviously taken in by Ridsdale and it took him a bit longer than most to see the forest for the trees.

I remember being lambasted for bringing to the attention on this forum the date of Dec 31st 2010 as a pivotal day and at the time it was said by Keith and Dave that I was wrong about it, now it seems that Dave has accepted he was wrong but Keith is finding it a little harder to accept.

Keith I am not trying to confuse the issue but as I have highlighted in your post above, if there was never an agreement that was signed off then where did the option of settling at a reduced amount by the end of 2010 come from?

I was there as you point out at the EGM and I do recall that the FD stated that the club did not take up the option of settling at the end of 2010, why is there a need to discuss the 2010 agreement if it was never signed off?

This is even more confusing!!

Go back to your earlier post when you comment on "number 3". There you clearly state that there was no agreement in which there was a sliding scale to settle the debt at £11m , £12m etc as time elapsed , and this was the point I agreed with.

I have never said there was an agreement that lapsed on 31 December 2010 , in fact I have said the exact opposite.What I have said is that there is no penalty clause arising from the club not taking up its option to settle earlier and asked on what basis you consider this to be inaccurate , regularly say that there is such a clause and the club board to have therefore lied to the EGM.

So , in simple terms ,on what basis do you believe that the board has lied to shareholders? Because , if there is any truth in the claims of yourself and others on this board that these penalties do exist then that is saying that the board have lied at a formal shareholders meeting and are therefore in some trouble legally.

Have you and others saying the board is wrong actually seen a signed legal document showing this to be the case , or are you reliant on someone just telling you it exists?

Keith did Doug Lee state in the EGM that the revised December 2009 agreement had expired on 31 December 2010.

So my question is if there was never a signed off agreement why was it mentioned at the EGM by the Finance Director?

Carl, stop avoiding and just answer his question. Have you seen a document that relates to penalty payments, its simple either you have or you haven't!

If you haven't how do you know such document exists???

Natman this thread is not about whether or not I have seen documents, it was started because of a quote made by Vince Alm when he said "you don't have to be Einstein to work out that legal action will happen".

Now it seems that there is disagreement over whether or not a third loan agreement was made or not, I am asking Keith whether or not a third agreement was ever in place and if that agreement has lapsed, Keith responded quite clearly stating that he does not believe that a third agreement lapsed or that the third agreement was ever signed off.

So I will ask again :

Did Doug Lee (Finance Director at CCFC) say in the last EGM that "the revised December 2009 agreement had expired on 31 December 2010".

Quite simple really - if the third agreement was never signed off that would mean it was never a bona fide legal agreement si therefore why was it even spoken of by the Finance Director?

Are you able to answer that one Natman, in Keith's absence?

Agreement 1 - the one in which nothing is due for repayment until Dec 2016 which has been clearly stated to be the only one in force as at the recent EGM

Agreement 2 - the one where there was an opition on the club`s part to settle the debt for £10m (plus possibly a promotion bonus). The option was not taken by the club , so the agreement lapsed.

Agreement 3 - the one with a sliding scale of settlement , increasing over time which you say was never signed (and I have agreed) after having been drafted by Ridsdale.

So I say , and the club say , that only one agreement is in force.

You say there is another in force with penalty clauses etc (a claim categorically denied by the club) but won`t say on what basis you believe this to be the case.

If you have seen a signed legal document proving the club to have lied , why not say so?
If you have not , but are just relying on what someone (and it may well be someone whose word you trust) has told you is in the document , again why not say so?

Keith the club has said a number of things in the past that have not been true, I am not suggesting anyone is lying here by the way, but to say the club has said it does not qualify the statement at all.

And with due respect you have stated that no third agreement was ever a legal document but there was clearly a third agreement as stated by the Finance Director so it does put doubt into posters minds that you are fully qualified to be arguing the case.

Keith the club has said a number of things in the past that have not been true, I am not suggesting anyone is lying here by the way, but to say the club has said it does not qualify the statement at all.

And with due respect you have stated that no third agreement was ever a legal document but there was clearly a third agreement as stated by the Finance Director so it does put doubt into posters minds that you are fully qualified to be arguing the case.



Carl, Over the years many many lies have come from our Club and no one can deny that.


All will be revealed soon and a few people with egg on their faces

Carl

Trying to get people to understand what I have said is like trying to knit fog!!

I will try and make it even more simple.

I said that there is only one agreement currently in place between the club and Langstone. For simplicity , I called it Agreement 1.

I also said that there HAD been a second agreement (I called it Agreement 2) , the one which gave the club the option to settle for £10m plus possibly some promotion bonus , but that it had lapsed because the club chose not to take up that option.

The FD at the EGM quite clearly confirmed the above to be the case.

I said that I agreed with YOUR expressed opinion that a third agreement drawn up by Ridsdale as a draft but which you have consistently have said was never finalised was not in place.

The FD definitely did NOT say at the EGM that a 3rd agreement existed.


There should be no confusion about the above , unless my posts are deliberately misinterpreted.

And I will take the bait and express a little annoyance at the comment that I may not be qualified to comment on these matters. With the same due respect you offered me , I believe that my knowledge and experience of financial and legal matters would outweigh yours , in the same way that you have far more knowledge and experience of the building industry than I have.

If you would simply state whether or not you have actually seen a legal document signed by the club which sets out a different agreement to the one the club and myself says is in force , then there would be no need for a further long drawn out debate on this.There are 3 possibilities as I see it

1) you have seen such a document and read and understood the relevant clauses

2) you have been told by a third party (who you may well trust implicitly) that such a document exists and that they have read and understood it

3) no-one has seen such a document and are relying on one party to the dispute saying that it exists


You are quite right to say that just because the club says something it is not automatically right. God knows we had enough lies told to us by Hammam and Ridsdale.But here is an easy opportunity for you to support your point of view by just clarifying which of 1 , 2 or 3 above is the case.

[quote=Keith the club has said a number of things in the past that have not been true, I am not suggesting anyone is lying here by the way, but to say the club has said it does not qualify the statement at all.

And with due respect you have stated that no third agreement was ever a legal document but there was clearly a third agreement as stated by the Finance Director so it does put doubt into posters minds that you are fully qualified to be arguing the case.



Carl, Over the years many many lies have come from our Club and no one can deny that.


All will be revealed soon and a few people with egg on their faces [/quote]
i am not taking sides but annis all we have heard
is that the truth will be revealed soon an nothing ever comes out i think people
should let the board an there legal team who are getting a pretty penny
for all thius sort it out in the board room or courts an we fans carry on
supporting the team which we have for years

Carl

Trying to get people to understand what I have said is like trying to knit fog!!

I will try and make it even more simple.

I said that there is only one agreement currently in place between the club and Langstone. For simplicity , I called it Agreement 1.

I also said that there HAD been a second agreement (I called it Agreement 2) , the one which gave the club the option to settle for £10m plus possibly some promotion bonus , but that it had lapsed because the club chose not to take up that option.

The FD at the EGM quite clearly confirmed the above to be the case.

I said that I agreed with YOUR expressed opinion that a third agreement drawn up by Ridsdale as a draft but which you have consistently have said was never finalised was not in place.

The FD definitely did NOT say at the EGM that a 3rd agreement existed.


There should be no confusion about the above , unless my posts are deliberately misinterpreted.

And I will take the bait and express a little annoyance at the comment that I may not be qualified to comment on these matters. With the same due respect you offered me , I believe that my knowledge and experience of financial and legal matters would outweigh yours , in the same way that you have far more knowledge and experience of the building industry than I have.

If you would simply state whether or not you have actually seen a legal document signed by the club which sets out a different agreement to the one the club and myself says is in force , then there would be no need for a further long drawn out debate on this.There are 3 possibilities as I see it

1) you have seen such a document and read and understood the relevant clauses

2) you have been told by a third party (who you may well trust implicitly) that such a document exists and that they have read and understood it

3) no-one has seen such a document and are relying on one party to the dispute saying that it exists


You are quite right to say that just because the club says something it is not automatically right. God knows we had enough lies told to us by Hammam and Ridsdale.But here is an easy opportunity for you to support your point of view by just clarifying which of 1 , 2 or 3 above is the case.

Keith again I am going to have to state that you seem confused and you say that there have been just 2 agreements with the second one reducing the debt to £10million if paid by 31/12/10.

The first agreement was drawn up in 2004 and it was for a debt of £24million.

The second agreement was drawn up in 2006 and was for £15million plus £9million naming rights.

And this is where your getting yourself in a bit of a tiz as a third agreement was made at the end of 2009 which allowed the debt to be written down for less if paid by 31/12/10.

Yes I agree the full and final agreement was not signed off BUT an interim agreement was made which was the one where the club made 12 monthly payments of £83k to hold off legal proceedings whilst the full and final third agreement was being finalised but we both agreed never materialised.

So you are wrong in your explanation of how the agreements have come about, you may want to check back with your former supporters trust board member Dave Sugarman who agrees himself that there have been 3 agreements and not 2 as you keep maintaining.

And the agreement that Doug Lee referred that had now lapsed was the third agreement, take a moment to read Dave Sugarmans blog regarding the 3 agreements and also his blog regarding the last EGM where he clearly states that Doug Lee was in fact referring to the 3rd agreement that I am insistent on stating was a contract between the club.

f**k me, the way you lot dodge questions you all should be politicians

f**k me, the way you lot dodge questions you all should be politicians

or the RIDDLER

Carl

I can`t respond to your latest post by the "quote" method as there are already 6 imbedded quotes in the relevant post so the system won`t let me , so I have replied here. Apologies if that makes it difficult for others to follow the thread.

You now raise a point about a "third agreement" which confuses me. You have yourself stated on several occasions that the agreement you refer to was drafted by Ridsdale but never formally signed and therefore never came into existence. I have also stated that I agree with your view on this, But you now seem to be bringing this document "back into play" as it were. Why?

To try (again) to make my position crystal clear.

I am of the opinion that there is only one legal debt agreement in place between the club and Langstone. This is the agreement in which the debt is repayable by the end of 2016 and there is no obligation on the part of the club to make interest or capital repayments in the interim period. I am also of the opinion that there is no other "penalty" element payable to Langstone as a consequence of the club not taking up its option to settle the debt by the end of 2010.
The basis of my opinion is that this is exactly what was said and clarified to shareholders (and yourself) at the recent EGM by the club board in response to specific questionning on the subject - no waffle , no ambiguity , just a categoric staement.

Your opinion is that another agreement exists which gives Sam Hammam/Langstone the right to demand repayment of the debt immediately and that also some form of "penalty payment" is also due to Langstone.
Yet you keep avoiding the crucial question as to what your opinion is based on - i.e. have you actually seen a legal document to this effect signed by the club , or whether you are basing your view on a third party telling you that such a document exists but who is unable/unwilling to disclose it publicly.
No-one is asking to you breach a confidentiality and say it was Sam or someone else that showed you such a document , or told you it existed , just to say whether you have actually seen such a thing or are just relying on hearsay as a basis for your opinion.
If you could just clarify this point , it would make it far easier for readers of this board to form a balanced opinion of their own on what the actual position is.

Keith

Keith I am not trying to confuse the issue but as I have highlighted in your post above, if there was never an agreement that was signed off then where did the option of settling at a reduced amount by the end of 2010 come from?

I was there as you point out at the EGM and I do recall that the FD stated that the club did not take up the option of settling at the end of 2010, why is there a need to discuss the 2010 agreement if it was never signed off?

This is even more confusing!!

Go back to your earlier post when you comment on "number 3". There you clearly state that there was no agreement in which there was a sliding scale to settle the debt at £11m , £12m etc as time elapsed , and this was the point I agreed with.

I have never said there was an agreement that lapsed on 31 December 2010 , in fact I have said the exact opposite.What I have said is that there is no penalty clause arising from the club not taking up its option to settle earlier and asked on what basis you consider this to be inaccurate , regularly say that there is such a clause and the club board to have therefore lied to the EGM.

So , in simple terms ,on what basis do you believe that the board has lied to shareholders? Because , if there is any truth in the claims of yourself and others on this board that these penalties do exist then that is saying that the board have lied at a formal shareholders meeting and are therefore in some trouble legally.

Have you and others saying the board is wrong actually seen a signed legal document showing this to be the case , or are you reliant on someone just telling you it exists?

Keith did Doug Lee state in the EGM that the revised December 2009 agreement had expired on 31 December 2010.

So my question is if there was never a signed off agreement why was it mentioned at the EGM by the Finance Director?

Carl, stop avoiding and just answer his question. Have you seen a document that relates to penalty payments, its simple either you have or you haven't!

If you haven't how do you know such document exists???

Natman this thread is not about whether or not I have seen documents, it was started because of a quote made by Vince Alm when he said "you don't have to be Einstein to work out that legal action will happen".

Now it seems that there is disagreement over whether or not a third loan agreement was made or not, I am asking Keith whether or not a third agreement was ever in place and if that agreement has lapsed, Keith responded quite clearly stating that he does not believe that a third agreement lapsed or that the third agreement was ever signed off.

So I will ask again :

Did Doug Lee (Finance Director at CCFC) say in the last EGM that "the revised December 2009 agreement had expired on 31 December 2010".

Quite simple really - if the third agreement was never signed off that would mean it was never a bona fide legal agreement si therefore why was it even spoken of by the Finance Director?

Are you able to answer that one Natman, in Keith's absence?

This thread neither has been about Keith's qualifications to examine matters like this but that has been brought into question, neither has it been about TLG's blog or what the FD said at the EGM, but all of these have been brought into the debate.

I'm guessing that by avoiding to answer the question that both myself and Keith are asking you probably means your bulls****ing everyone with regards to this legal action. To quote yourself... "a simple yes or no will suffice". So whay can't you answer it Carl, a simple reply on this matter would put people's questions to rest. but You won't do it... why is that????

Again, as i and other on this board and MMMB have stated on plenty of occasions it is simply to serve an agenda. The garner the support of fans in order to destabilise the club and its current ownership in order to get the return of Sam! Do you want to be part of the inner circle again??? Do you want to be ITK again???? Do you want to be pally pally with the owner??? Is this really what its all about??? Is it really that important to serve you own sense of self-importance??? I'm not saying it is I'm not saying it isn't but why Carl are influential posters on this board so keen and ready to chip away at the current regime at the club and how things are run??? What have you got to gain????

If its Sam that is or is not to get the money then that is his issue. But why are you so keen to defend and promote him??? again, what have you got to gain or more succinctly what are you going to gain from all of this????

I await to be banned!

Keith I am not trying to confuse the issue but as I have highlighted in your post above, if there was never an agreement that was signed off then where did the option of settling at a reduced amount by the end of 2010 come from?

I was there as you point out at the EGM and I do recall that the FD stated that the club did not take up the option of settling at the end of 2010, why is there a need to discuss the 2010 agreement if it was never signed off?

This is even more confusing!!

Go back to your earlier post when you comment on "number 3". There you clearly state that there was no agreement in which there was a sliding scale to settle the debt at £11m , £12m etc as time elapsed , and this was the point I agreed with.

I have never said there was an agreement that lapsed on 31 December 2010 , in fact I have said the exact opposite.What I have said is that there is no penalty clause arising from the club not taking up its option to settle earlier and asked on what basis you consider this to be inaccurate , regularly say that there is such a clause and the club board to have therefore lied to the EGM.

So , in simple terms ,on what basis do you believe that the board has lied to shareholders? Because , if there is any truth in the claims of yourself and others on this board that these penalties do exist then that is saying that the board have lied at a formal shareholders meeting and are therefore in some trouble legally.

Have you and others saying the board is wrong actually seen a signed legal document showing this to be the case , or are you reliant on someone just telling you it exists?

Keith did Doug Lee state in the EGM that the revised December 2009 agreement had expired on 31 December 2010.

So my question is if there was never a signed off agreement why was it mentioned at the EGM by the Finance Director?

Carl, stop avoiding and just answer his question. Have you seen a document that relates to penalty payments, its simple either you have or you haven't!

If you haven't how do you know such document exists???

Natman this thread is not about whether or not I have seen documents, it was started because of a quote made by Vince Alm when he said "you don't have to be Einstein to work out that legal action will happen".

Now it seems that there is disagreement over whether or not a third loan agreement was made or not, I am asking Keith whether or not a third agreement was ever in place and if that agreement has lapsed, Keith responded quite clearly stating that he does not believe that a third agreement lapsed or that the third agreement was ever signed off.

So I will ask again :

Did Doug Lee (Finance Director at CCFC) say in the last EGM that "the revised December 2009 agreement had expired on 31 December 2010".

Quite simple really - if the third agreement was never signed off that would mean it was never a bona fide legal agreement si therefore why was it even spoken of by the Finance Director?

Are you able to answer that one Natman, in Keith's absence?

This thread neither has been about Keith's qualifications to examine matters like this but that has been brought into question, neither has it been about TLG's blog or what the FD said at the EGM, but all of these have been brought into the debate.

I'm guessing that by avoiding to answer the question that both myself and Keith are asking you probably means your bulls****ing everyone with regards to this legal action. To quote yourself... "a simple yes or no will suffice". So whay can't you answer it Carl, a simple reply on this matter would put people's questions to rest. but You won't do it... why is that????

Again, as i and other on this board and MMMB have stated on plenty of occasions it is simply to serve an agenda. The garner the support of fans in order to destabilise the club and its current ownership in order to get the return of Sam! Do you want to be part of the inner circle again??? Do you want to be ITK again???? Do you want to be pally pally with the owner??? Is this really what its all about??? Is it really that important to serve you own sense of self-importance??? I'm not saying it is I'm not saying it isn't but why Carl are influential posters on this board so keen and ready to chip away at the current regime at the club and how things are run??? What have you got to gain????

If its Sam that is or is not to get the money then that is his issue. But why are you so keen to defend and promote him??? again, what have you got to gain or more succinctly what are you going to gain from all of this????

I await to be banned!

Another confusing post from a confused poster, this legal action you say I am bullshitting about was not brought about by myself I only happened to be in a meeting when it was said by Vince.

And all the nonsense that I want to be part of the inner circle again? I wish people would make their minds up, first I have only followed City for 7 years I am a newbie from Neath Now I want to be part of the inner circle again

And you claim I am misleading and bullshitting.

Keith is wrong in his postings regarding the number of agreements that have been made, I believe it is a genuine mistake and Keith is not trying to mislead but he is confused and when he takes 5 minutes to read over what I asked him too I think you will find that Keith will admit he is wrong.

Carl is Spot on with the following and I think you will find Keith will be man enough to admit it





Keith is wrong in his postings regarding the number of agreements that have been made, I believe it is a genuine mistake and Keith is not trying to mislead but he is confused and when he takes 5 minutes to read over what I asked him too I think you will find that Keith will admit he is wrong.

so then... has there been a document which includes the threat of legal action that you have either read or someone has referenced to you? Yes or no???? one or the other, that's all it takes

It's worth pointing out anyone can bring a civil court case.

Doesn't mean the case has any merit, see the previous summary judgment case.

so then... has there been a document which includes the threat of legal action that you have either read or someone has referenced to you? Yes or no???? one or the other, that's all it takes

I am not aware of a document which includes the threat of legal action and nobody has referenced that to me either.

so then... has there been a document which includes the threat of legal action that you have either read or someone has referenced to you? Yes or no???? one or the other, that's all it takes

I am not aware of a document which includes the threat of legal action and nobody has referenced that to me either.

So basically there's the possibility whoever made the comment was making it as a tongue in cheek comment rather than as a factual one?

I don't doubt legal action would occur at some point, instigated by Langstone. All part of a poker game.

so then... has there been a document which includes the threat of legal action that you have either read or someone has referenced to you? Yes or no???? one or the other, that's all it takes

I am not aware of a document which includes the threat of legal action and nobody has referenced that to me either.

HOOORRRRAAAAYYYYYYY!!! LOL

so then... has there been a document which includes the threat of legal action that you have either read or someone has referenced to you? Yes or no???? one or the other, that's all it takes

I am not aware of a document which includes the threat of legal action and nobody has referenced that to me either.

So basically there's the possibility whoever made the comment was making it as a tongue in cheek comment rather than as a factual one?

I don't doubt legal action would occur at some point, instigated by Langstone. All part of a poker game.

Spot on!!! All conjecture nothing factual to it and the lack of response was probably more of contempt than acknowledgement. Too much has been read into in my opinion

so then... has there been a document which includes the threat of legal action that you have either read or someone has referenced to you? Yes or no???? one or the other, that's all it takes

I am not aware of a document which includes the threat of legal action and nobody has referenced that to me either.

So basically there's the possibility whoever made the comment was making it as a tongue in cheek comment rather than as a factual one?

I don't doubt legal action would occur at some point, instigated by Langstone. All part of a poker game.

Nerd I believe people have become confused by this thread because of 2 very different happenings.

Firstly Vince made a statement that legal action would have to be dealt with soon by Alan Whiteley.

Secondly Keith Morgan has kept asking about a document relating to loan note 3.

Now it seems that Natman has brought the 2 together and come up with a question that read " have you seen a document that includes the threat of legal action?'

I answered it by saying no I have not but Natman is celebrating believing he has struck gold but the answer Keith was looking for was not an answer to the question that Natman asked which has no relevance to the thread whatsoever.