FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN THE POLITICS OF OUR CLUB

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

Natman how can you agree that legal action would occur at sometime but also be of the opinion that the debt is not payable as per the contract/agreement that is 'in play'.

Clearly the comment that you don't need to be Einstien to work out that legal action was pending was completely wrong based the last 6 pages

I believe both Carl and Keith might be both right and wrong in the same measure but are both missing a vital point. If the club has stopped paying the £83k p/m in December 2010 then they the club have probably committed a breach of contract whether the agreement of December 2009 was an 'option' has 'lapsed' or was never 'signed off'

The original Summary Judgement gave both sides an oppotunity to come to an amicable arrangement. Those payments would have been considered amicable by the High Court as they would have given Langston £1m p/a interest until 2016 when the principle sum was due to be repaid. Indeed those payments have set a precedent which could easily be exploited by Langston's lawyers who would easily argue that a 'contract' was in place from the moment the first payment was made.

The stopping of the payments was a clear act of bad will by CCFC and has given Langston all the grounds they need to return to the High Court.

Keith that probably answers the question to why the comments you heard at the EGM were made and to why many now believe that Langston will go back to court.

Clearly the comment that you don't need to be Einstien to work out that legal action was pending was completely wrong based the last 6 pages

I believe both Carl and Keith might be both right and wrong in the same measure but are both missing a vital point. If the club has stopped paying the £83k p/m in December 2010 then they the club have probably committed a breach of contract whether the agreement of December 2009 was an 'option' has 'lapsed' or was never 'signed off'

The original Summary Judgement gave both sides an oppotunity to come to an amicable arrangement. Those payments would have been considered amicable by the High Court as they would have given Langston £1m p/a interest until 2016 when the principle sum was due to be repaid. Indeed those payments have set a precedent which could easily be exploited by Langston's lawyers who would easily argue that a 'contract' was in place from the moment the first payment was made.

The stopping of the payments was a clear act of bad will by CCFC and has given Langston all the grounds they need to return to the High Court.

Keith that probably answers the question to why the comments you heard at the EGM were made and to why many now believe that Langston will go back to court.

Way off on the summary judgment.

The action by Langston was dismissed, summary judgment would not have been granted.

The judge urged both parties to find an amicable solution to avoid lengthy legal action in the future. There was no legal demand for an amicable solution so the high court finding any such payments as amicable is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Keith explained the payments previously, I'm afraid I'm going to agree with the certified accountant on this one.

Clearly the comment that you don't need to be Einstien to work out that legal action was pending was completely wrong based the last 6 pages

I believe both Carl and Keith might be both right and wrong in the same measure but are both missing a vital point. If the club has stopped paying the £83k p/m in December 2010 then they the club have probably committed a breach of contract whether the agreement of December 2009 was an 'option' has 'lapsed' or was never 'signed off'

The original Summary Judgement gave both sides an oppotunity to come to an amicable arrangement. Those payments would have been considered amicable by the High Court as they would have given Langston £1m p/a interest until 2016 when the principle sum was due to be repaid. Indeed those payments have set a precedent which could easily be exploited by Langston's lawyers who would easily argue that a 'contract' was in place from the moment the first payment was made.

The stopping of the payments was a clear act of bad will by CCFC and has given Langston all the grounds they need to return to the High Court.

Keith that probably answers the question to why the comments you heard at the EGM were made and to why many now believe that Langston will go back to court.

Keith is very wrong on this one Tony as he has made an error in recounting the number of agreements that have been made, he claims 2 but in fact 3 have been made.

The third agreement was an interim agreement made whilst the full and final contract was being finalised but never materialised.

The £83k monthly payments were part of the dec 31st 2010 agreement or loan note 3 if you like, once the club decided not to take up the option of settling at a reduced rate before the 31st of dec 2010 the payments stopped also, I don't believe that there is a breach of this contract but it is whether or not the amount became payable immediately or not.

The fact is that both Langston and CCFC can argue all day whether loan note 1 or loan note 2 is in play but that is more of a sideshow to the bigger picture as both are huge amounts of money.

It is whether or not the amount of whichever loan note is in play is payable immediately or not that is key.

The club are adamant that loan note 2 is in play and they believe that they have until 2016 to pay it.

Perhaps Langston are not particularly bothered whether loan note 1 or 2 is in play but more concerned if either/or has been breached.

I've just read the full thread and noticed that Carl is talking about agreements and also Keith is talking about agreement. So I'm taking it this thread is all about agreements.

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

Natman how can you agree that legal action would occur at sometime but also be of the opinion that the debt is not payable as per the contract/agreement that is 'in play'.

TBH Carl I've not got a clue, much of this baffles me. I could just see what I thought was a question being asked and it being avoided like the plague, as per some of my other points earlier. The reason I was celebrating was that i'd finally got an answer, not because of what the answer was.

I think you'll find Keith was asking the same question relating to a document that presented the grounds for legal action should payments not be made. Which is what were both asking had you been witness to.

my head hurts so at the moment loan agreement 23 is in place and as we didnt pay up by dec 2010 we now owe £45 trillion to john fashnu??

So a retard like me can understand it:

There is/was an agreement in place re: paying back the debt to Langstone.
Irrespective of whether its Agreement No 1, 10, 20, 007........

The people now pulling the strings have not stuck to it. They are now
saying 'shove that agreement up your arse, we'll do it our way and if you
dont like it.....

2, 4, 6, 8... Litigate!!

Someone posted the other day that it was a question of 'who blinks first'

Nail on the head I think!