Where does it state the Langston confession ?

Nott said getting that confirmation from Hammam was the vital element in brokering the agreement, but he refused to speculate on why the 68-year-old was so guarded about who Langston really were and what his involvement was.

“Beyond all the complex legal argument, what really provoked this was the long-running issue of just who Langston were and why was it being kept a secret?” added Chris.

“Who was behind a Panama-based company, with nominal directors and a base in Switzerland? The key to moving things on was finally getting Mr Hammam to admit in litigation that he was in fact Langston. That was the major factor from the club’s perspective anyway.

Those are the words of Chris Nott, a senior partner at Cardiff City’s law firm, Capital Law. I don't see any reason why he would lie on the clubs behalf.

If the club were to prove that he is Langston then I would imagine they would not be agreeing to pay £5m in a lump sum.

Why not? To quote Mehmet Dalman:

“It is bad governance not knowing who is the owner of a debt we are trying to honour.

“Right at the moment I want to know who it is.”

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foot ... ay-8574340

The club intended to pay the debt once they knew who was behind Langston. Now that Hammam has admitted he is behind Langston the club have agreed to pay the debt within 30 days.



Additionally, the club could actually show a profit on this settlement as, according to Sam's statement, the agreement they signed a few years ago stated he was due £5.75m:

"Court proceedings have been issued against Vincent Tan to pay an amount of £5.75 million plus interest," said Hammam in a statement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/31040542

If the club has recognised a creditor of £5.75m+ in the 14/15 accounts, yet ended up only paying a 5m lump sum, there would be a 750k profit going through the P&L in 15/16 (as the contingent 2m would not be recognised).

Read through most the postings but can't see where Hammam makes a confession ?

Can someone point me in the direction so I can catch up with the latest episode of the soap opera !!

it was said in court apparently

No it wasn't.

How has it come out then ?

You can't see it either then Wez ?

no I thought it came out in court with Sam admitted it to get the pay off

Couldn't have as settled out of court from my readings also if the contract of repayment was tight it wouldn't have mattered anyway who Langston were, the club had already paid them millions too, so the Dalman comment about " good governance is total bollocks "

If you owe an off shore company money and you have a signed contract of repayment it does not matter a dimly squat who owns the Company.

My own point of view, was, what does it matter now, if SH is proved to be Langston?? So what's your take on it Daya? Why were the payments stopped in the first place and why have they now now agreed to pay in full? Even if Sam admitted he is Langston?

Ron Noades died December 2013, hence why the club tried in on there after.
They have agreed to pay now as they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court.

So are you saying that Ron Noades was part of Langston and that Tan was happy to pay him, as he nothing to do with running up the debt in the first place, but as soon as he departed this mortal coil, Tan was not so happy to carry on paying SH?

I think the club had deep suspicion that Noades was Langston and when he popped his clogs looked for a possible opportunity to saving a few million.
In my belief Hammam was always the front man for Noades going right back to when Sam Hammam was " supposed " to have bought Wimbledon from Noades, I believe it was all a front for Noades to control two clubs, who funny enough ended up sharing the same ground at selhurst park.

Also same time look deep into the goings on at Brentwood and Cardiff at the same time, so many coincidences , possible ground moves, again loan notes etc etc .

Nott said getting that confirmation from Hammam was the vital element in brokering the agreement, but he refused to speculate on why the 68-year-old was so guarded about who Langston really were and what his involvement was.

“Beyond all the complex legal argument, what really provoked this was the long-running issue of just who Langston were and why was it being kept a secret?” added Chris.

“Who was behind a Panama-based company, with nominal directors and a base in Switzerland? The key to moving things on was finally getting Mr Hammam to admit in litigation that he was in fact Langston. That was the major factor from the club’s perspective anyway.

Those are the words of Chris Nott, a senior partner at Cardiff City’s law firm, Capital Law. I don't see any reason why he would lie on the clubs behalf.

If the club were to prove that he is Langston then I would imagine they would not be agreeing to pay £5m in a lump sum.

Why not? To quote Mehmet Dalman:

“It is bad governance not knowing who is the owner of a debt we are trying to honour.

“Right at the moment I want to know who it is.”

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foot ... ay-8574340

The club intended to pay the debt once they knew who was behind Langston. Now that Hammam has admitted he is behind Langston the club have agreed to pay the debt within 30 days.



Additionally, the club could actually show a profit on this settlement as, according to Sam's statement, the agreement they signed a few years ago stated he was due £5.75m:

"Court proceedings have been issued against Vincent Tan to pay an amount of £5.75 million plus interest," said Hammam in a statement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/31040542

If the club has recognised a creditor of £5.75m+ in the 14/15 accounts, yet ended up only paying a 5m lump sum, there would be a 750k profit going through the P&L in 15/16 (as the contingent 2m would not be recognised).

A. A solicitor only speaks for one party, your Mr Nott has not provided any evidence to back up his claim.
What your Mr Nott doesn't either explain is why had the same club already paid a huge amount up until 2013 when they didn't know who was behind Langston and then decided to stop paying in 2013.

B. As for Dalman comments they are " waffle " - firstly he talks of good governance, albeit he majority of the debt has already been paid by 2013 leaving only a shortfall of 5 million. He claims they were trying to honour the debt, but that's bullshit because they simply stopped paying on an agreement that was nearly fulfilled.

Finally Mr Nott talks of litigation, surely that litigation would have been in confidence in an amicable out of court settlement?

Nott said getting that confirmation from Hammam was the vital element in brokering the agreement, but he refused to speculate on why the 68-year-old was so guarded about who Langston really were and what his involvement was.

“Beyond all the complex legal argument, what really provoked this was the long-running issue of just who Langston were and why was it being kept a secret?” added Chris.

“Who was behind a Panama-based company, with nominal directors and a base in Switzerland? The key to moving things on was finally getting Mr Hammam to admit in litigation that he was in fact Langston. That was the major factor from the club’s perspective anyway.

Those are the words of Chris Nott, a senior partner at Cardiff City’s law firm, Capital Law. I don't see any reason why he would lie on the clubs behalf.

If the club were to prove that he is Langston then I would imagine they would not be agreeing to pay £5m in a lump sum.

Why not? To quote Mehmet Dalman:

“It is bad governance not knowing who is the owner of a debt we are trying to honour.

“Right at the moment I want to know who it is.”

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foot ... ay-8574340

The club intended to pay the debt once they knew who was behind Langston. Now that Hammam has admitted he is behind Langston the club have agreed to pay the debt within 30 days.



Additionally, the club could actually show a profit on this settlement as, according to Sam's statement, the agreement they signed a few years ago stated he was due £5.75m:

"Court proceedings have been issued against Vincent Tan to pay an amount of £5.75 million plus interest," said Hammam in a statement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/31040542

If the club has recognised a creditor of £5.75m+ in the 14/15 accounts, yet ended up only paying a 5m lump sum, there would be a 750k profit going through the P&L in 15/16 (as the contingent 2m would not be recognised).

A. A solicitor only speaks for one party, your Mr Nott has not provided any evidence to back up his claim.
What your Mr Nott doesn't either explain is why had the same club already paid a huge amount up until 2013 when they didn't know who was behind Langston and then decided to stop paying in 2013.

B. As for Dalman comments they are " waffle " - firstly he talks of good governance, albeit he majority of the debt has already been paid by 2013 leaving only a shortfall of 5 million. He claims they were trying to honour the debt, but that's bullshit because they simply stopped paying on an agreement that was nearly fulfilled.

Finally Mr Nott talks of litigation, surely that litigation would have been in confidence in an amicable out of court settlement?

I'm sure if it isn't true then Sam would be suing them

Sam has sent out the "big guns" tonight to try to persuade us yet again that he's the good guy in all this.

Pathetic really.

Sam has sent out the "big guns" tonight to try to persuade us yet again that he's the good guy in all this.

Pathetic really.

It looks like he loves to lie to people

Sam has sent out the "big guns" tonight to try to persuade us yet again that he's the good guy in all this.

Pathetic really.

What a pathetic statement, if you weren't a newbie fan you would know that I'm not a Hammam man in the slightest and was actually the first one to fall out with him and fought like cat and dog as I expressed my opinion on his spendings.

Sam has sent out the "big guns" tonight to try to persuade us yet again that he's the good guy in all this.

Pathetic really.

It looks like he loves to lie to people

Wez the clear fact remains there's no evidence that Hammam confessed at all. Until I see some I will remain on the belief Dalman is as always talking shit ( he's a slime ball ) and feeding Tucker in an attempt to control the press.

Sam has sent out the "big guns" tonight to try to persuade us yet again that he's the good guy in all this.

Pathetic really.

It looks like he loves to lie to people

Wez the clear fact remains there's no evidence that Hammam confessed at all. Until I see some I will remain on the belief Dalman is as always talking shit ( he's a slime ball ) and feeding Tucker in an attempt to control the press.

it's not dalman the solicitor I just don't think they would make this up
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foot ... y-10821125

Question for Daya:

Steve, you stated correctly that (quote): "A solicitor only speaks for one party, your Mr Nott has not provided any evidence to back up his claim" regarding the non-revelation that Sam = Langston

Is it not a case of some legal agreement and/or a matter of privacy as to how/why an agreement between the two parties came about?

I am sure Chris Nott (acting on behalf Capital Law (his employers) and Vincent Tan (their client) would not have made such a statement if it was not true. That would be litigious in itself and also very unprofessional for him to do so

Basically, we do not HAVE to be provided with every single detail of the legal agreement. Sometimes we just have to be satisfied that the private agreement reached (i.e. the 'out of Court' settlement) has indeed been reached, so all parties can claim some kind of moral victory and move on

You have asked some pertinent questions and it wouldn't surprise me one iota if the late Ron Noades was also involved, but the answers the fans (and maybe Tan) needed are in the professional text of the statement read out by Chris Nott on behalf of Vincent Tan (not the club), i.e. Sam has admitted to being Langston, which is hardly the shock admission of the century

To dissect any further with no other information currently available serves only to further destabilise a situation that should now be dying down and serves no one except those with an unhealthy interest in the future of Cardiff City Football Club

Only time will tell if this is the complete end of the saga or if this the beginning of a brighter future for the club under Tan or any prospective new owner but it certainly won't help trying to glean information that is based on rumour and/or conjecture; something many on here have been far too good at over the past few years

Good on Chris Nott and both teams for gaining a mutually agreeable outcome

High time for both sides, the club and its supporters to move on and look to the future, I say

Nott said getting that confirmation from Hammam was the vital element in brokering the agreement, but he refused to speculate on why the 68-year-old was so guarded about who Langston really were and what his involvement was.

“Beyond all the complex legal argument, what really provoked this was the long-running issue of just who Langston were and why was it being kept a secret?” added Chris.

“Who was behind a Panama-based company, with nominal directors and a base in Switzerland? The key to moving things on was finally getting Mr Hammam to admit in litigation that he was in fact Langston. That was the major factor from the club’s perspective anyway.

Those are the words of Chris Nott, a senior partner at Cardiff City’s law firm, Capital Law. I don't see any reason why he would lie on the clubs behalf.

If the club were to prove that he is Langston then I would imagine they would not be agreeing to pay £5m in a lump sum.

Why not? To quote Mehmet Dalman:

“It is bad governance not knowing who is the owner of a debt we are trying to honour.

“Right at the moment I want to know who it is.”

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foot ... ay-8574340

The club intended to pay the debt once they knew who was behind Langston. Now that Hammam has admitted he is behind Langston the club have agreed to pay the debt within 30 days.



Additionally, the club could actually show a profit on this settlement as, according to Sam's statement, the agreement they signed a few years ago stated he was due £5.75m:

"Court proceedings have been issued against Vincent Tan to pay an amount of £5.75 million plus interest," said Hammam in a statement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/31040542

If the club has recognised a creditor of £5.75m+ in the 14/15 accounts, yet ended up only paying a 5m lump sum, there would be a 750k profit going through the P&L in 15/16 (as the contingent 2m would not be recognised).

A. A solicitor only speaks for one party, your Mr Nott has not provided any evidence to back up his claim.
What your Mr Nott doesn't either explain is why had the same club already paid a huge amount up until 2013 when they didn't know who was behind Langston and then decided to stop paying in 2013.

B. As for Dalman comments they are " waffle " - firstly he talks of good governance, albeit he majority of the debt has already been paid by 2013 leaving only a shortfall of 5 million. He claims they were trying to honour the debt, but that's bullshit because they simply stopped paying on an agreement that was nearly fulfilled.

Finally Mr Nott talks of litigation, surely that litigation would have been in confidence in an amicable out of court settlement?

I'm sure if it isn't true then Sam would be suing them

He may well do now who knows although that litigation is very costly, look at what happened to Freddie Starr and he was telling the truth.
Amicable out of court settlements have confidentiality agreements, this wasn't amicable, Cardiff City knew if they took it to the court room they would have lost hands down. They settled to save more court costs and face.

Seems to me Tucker has been told spin from within to sway people's opinions. I don't see anywhere where it states he is Langston either

Last edited by Bluebird1977 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Theres no way the f*cking lawyer would come out with an outright lie like this ffs!!!

Seems to me Tucker has been told spin from within to sway people's opinions. I don't see anywhere where it states he is Langston either

read this new one http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foot ... y-10821125

looking at things it seems as if people are fighting back on behalve of langston/sam now? just when thought it was done and dusted some people are not happy??

Seems to me Tucker has been told spin from within to sway people's opinions. I don't see anywhere where it states he is Langston either

The solicitor representing cardiff city has stated that hammam has admitted it, is that not enough proof???

Seems to me Tucker has been told spin from within to sway people's opinions. I don't see anywhere where it states he is Langston either

The solicitor representing cardiff city has stated that hammam has admitted it, is that not enough proof???

apparently not!

Theres no way the f*cking lawyer would come out with an outright lie like this ffs!!!

Exactly sams few followers are delusional

Read through most the postings but can't see where Hammam makes a confession ?

Can someone point me in the direction so I can catch up with the latest episode of the soap opera !!

Here you go steve

The inside story of how the Cardiff City v Langston dispute was finally settled after late night dealing and Sam Hammam's revelation

1ST FEB 2016

BY STEVE TUCKER

The Bluebirds are finally free of their oldest and biggest creditor after an out of court agreement was reached between the club and Langston



It took some late nights and just a few slices of pizza to bring one of the longest running debt sagas in football to an end and finally get Sam Hammam to admit he IS Langston.

The Bluebirds are finally free of their oldest and biggest creditor after an out of court agreement was reached between the club and the mysterious corporation.



Cardiff will now pay Langston, or former owner Hammam as we now know, a figure believed to be around £5m within the next 30 days. Another payment believed to be just under £2m will also be due if, or when, the Welsh club is promoted to the Premier League.

It brings to an end an incredible tale of confusion, acrimony and worry that began way back in 2003 when Lebanese businessman Hammam, then owner of the club, took out £24m in loan notes from a group called Langston.


A series of re-workings and restructurings of the debt followed, especially after Hammam was pushed from power at the club. Four years ago, the two parties reached agreement on a £22m settlement, to be paid in the form of £15m up front, followed by £7m in £250,000 quarterly instalments over seven years.

The Bluebirds had been honouring that but suspended payments with £5.7m left outstanding, citing the fact they were concerned they did not actually know who was behind Langston. Just who were they paying millions of pounds to?

That final stumbling block has been lifted and the man behind that shift has told WalesOnline of the protracted and tense negotiations needed to finally bring an end to ‘Langston-gate.’



Chris Nott, senior partner at Cardiff City’s law firm, Capital Law, has revealed how he and his colleagues had to burn the midnight oil to get the deal done. Nott {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252
{\fonttbl\f0\fnil\fcharset0 .HelveticaNeueInterface-Regular;}
{\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red98\green98\blue98;}
\deftab720
\pard\pardeftab720\partightenfactor0

\f0\fs26 \cf2 \expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0
\outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 \
} admits to an interest in proceedings that weren’t entirely professional as he is himself a Bluebirds supporter.

The final deal was concluded at 2am on Monday morning and was agreed by the massive legal teams that had become involved in the case on both sides of four barristers and five solicitors. The agreement was ratified by the High Court at 3pm on Monday.

An exhausted Nott told us it had been hard work, but that the settlement was great news for the club and its supporters.

“It it is very good news. It is certainly very good news for Cardiff City and its supporters that we have managed to finally to get an agreement on this in such a professional manner,” said Nott.


“I’m not able to go into financial details, but the mechanism is that Cardiff City will now pay Langston a one-off payment within 30 days and then another payment is due if the club are promoted to the Premier League.

“Original negotiations began last week and lasted right through the weekend. It was finally agreed at 2am on Monday. One of the issues was the dispute had been going on so long, there were so many lawyers attached to it on both sides and we all had to be satisfied with the final deal.

“One thing they say about lawyers is that we can never really get anything finished unless pizza has been ordered in. Sure, it was a long weekend, and the first thing I want to do is get to bed now. But it is a great day for Cardiff City and a good deal for the club. After so long it is satisfying to be able to say that the Cardiff and Langston saga is finally over.”



Cardiff City owner Vincent Tan and, in particular, chairman Mehmet Dalman, who also played a key part in negotiating an end to the dispute, had maintained all along they would not continue making payments to Langston when they did not know officially who was behind the group.

Amidst internal fears of administration at a club that is already under a transfer embargo, the Bluebirds hierarchy stuck to its guns. Dalman recently stated: “It is bad governance not knowing who is the owner of a debt we are trying to honour. Right now I want to know who Langston is.”

It might well have been the worst kept secret in football, but Cardiff City have finally got their answer, with Hammam admitting he is behind the group that issued the original loan notes all those years ago.

Sam Hammam during his time in charge at Cardiff CitySam Hammam during his time in charge at Cardiff City
Nott said getting that confirmation from Hammam was the vital element in brokering the agreement, but he refused to speculate on why the 68-year-old was so guarded about who Langston really were and what his involvement was.

“Beyond all the complex legal argument, what really provoked this was the long-running issue of just who Langston were and why was it being kept a secret?” added Chris.

“Who was behind a Panama-based company, with nominal directors and a base in Switzerland? The key to moving things on was finally getting Mr Hammam to admit in litigation that he was in fact Langston. That was the major factor from the club’s perspective anyway.

“If someone wants to keep something so spectacularly secret then there has to be reasons behind why they would do that and Mr Hammam must have his reasons, but it is not for me to speculate on them.”

Nott admits he hasn't been professional in his own words.

This is a fabricated load of bullshit , 30 day payment is not a negotiation , it's what a court would order.
Banks of legal teams from both sides ? - again bullshit because there wouldn't be change left after their bills out of 5 million.

Long weekend and pizza in and Nott wants to go to bed ? What a load of bollocks.
Hammam put Cardiff City in court and Cardiff City settled out of court last minute knowing they couldn't win, hence its being paid in 30 days. Negotiations would have seen extended payment terms to court orders of 30 days.
I'm no Hammam fan ....but Cardiff fans I tell you now your club is bullshitting you ( again ) and spinning shit to you.
They stopped paying, were put in court , settled out of court to save face and extra costs.

Theres no way the f*cking lawyer would come out with an outright lie like this ffs!!!

Paul, you are correct

It would surely ruin his career, so IMHO he would not have said it if it wasn't true

Theres no way the f*cking lawyer would come out with an outright lie like this ffs!!!

Exactly sams few followers are delusional

Lawyers are trained to lie.

Theres no way the f*cking lawyer would come out with an outright lie like this ffs!!!

Exactly sams few followers are delusional

Lawyers are trained to lie.

The only way you would be happy is if you had a recording of Sam saying it it seems obvious that sam has said it during litigation ,I'm sure Sam would of phoned one of his buddy's on here if it wasn't true already

Sam has sent out the "big guns" tonight to try to persuade us yet again that he's the good guy in all this.

Pathetic really.

What a pathetic statement, if you weren't a newbie fan you would know that I'm not a Hammam man in the slightest and was actually the first one to fall out with him and fought like cat and dog as I expressed my opinion on his spendings.

Having supported Cardiff City and only Cardiff City since 1970 I'm not really a newbie fan.

It's just that I've not really paid any attention to whether or not you're a Hammam man over the years as your opinion and viewpoint is of no interest to me whatsoever.

Theres no way the f*cking lawyer would come out with an outright lie like this ffs!!!

Paul, you are correct

It would surely ruin his career, so IMHO he would not have said it if it wasn't true

Sven .... He's even quoted as saying he's not been professional. Read the tucker article.

He's a solicitor ... For his client, they say what they wish.

Sven ask yourself this, if me and you settled out of court a disagreement would we do it privately and in confidence or allow our lawyers to talk to the press ? Course we f*cking wouldn't .

Bottom line is Sam Hammam took it court and won with an out of court settlement because Cardiff City didn't have a leg to stand on.

Why not ask the board you praise to provide the evidence , clearly there's no confidentiality agreement so do the simple thing and ask your slime ball chairman for the evidence !!!

Go on..... ASK ..... You won't see evidence as there isn't any !!

Steve (Daya)

Chris Nott (with some humour) admitted to being slightly unprofessional in as much as he is an admitted Cardiff City FC supporter and had a personal interest in seeing things through!

Do you really think that when not came to the professional/legal nitty gritty he wouldn't have done his job professionally?

I have no big issue with you, you know that, but I'm not sure what you are up to tonight?

Sam took Tan to Court, both sides met and thrashed an 'out of Court' agreement that likely had confidentiality clauses within it and a deal was struck with the club agreeing to pay all the money back in two phases (if you include the Premier League clause) and Sam admitting he was (shock, horror!) the man behind the mysterious Langston

That's it, fella! The case appears closed and I am sure some of the finer detail will never be revealed as both sides begin to move on and the followers of Cardiff City FC must be allowed to do the same too!

Sam has sent out the "big guns" tonight to try to persuade us yet again that he's the good guy in all this.

Pathetic really.

What a pathetic statement, if you weren't a newbie fan you would know that I'm not a Hammam man in the slightest and was actually the first one to fall out with him and fought like cat and dog as I expressed my opinion on his spendings.

Having supported Cardiff City and only Cardiff City since 1970 I'm not really a newbie fan.

It's just that I've not really paid any attention to whether or not you're a Hammam man over the years as your opinion and viewpoint is of no interest to me whatsoever.

That's as bad excuse as a Chris Nott statement to Steve Tucker.
If my opinion was of no interest you wouldn't have made such a pathetic statement in the first place.
Why would I be a Hammam big gun as you call it ? You haven't paid any attention again in your own words !
Stop talking shite and tying yourself up in " notts "

SB stated.

'We did not pay his (SAMs ) costs and actually got a discount on the payment.

Also Steve you might want to consider the debt was paid up until late 2014, not 2013.

Whether Noades was involved or not, who knows, but the statements today appear to nail Sam.

If they definitely aren't true then I'm sure he won't be quiet for long and we'll soon end up back in court.

It's like Groundhog Day

Steve (Daya)

Chris Nott (with some humour) admitted to being slightly unprofessional in as much as he is an admitted Cardiff City FC supporter and had a personal interest in seeing things through!

Do you really think that when not came to the professional/legal nitty gritty he wouldn't have done his job professionally?

I have no big issue with you, you know that, but I'm not sure what you are up to tonight?

Sam took Tan to Court, both sides met and thrashed an 'out of Court' agreement that likely had confidentiality clauses within it and a deal was struck with the club agreeing to pay all the money back in two phases (if you include the Premier League clause) and Sam admitting he was (shock, horror!) the man behind the mysterious Langston

That's it, fella! The case appears closed and I am sure some of the finer detail will never be revealed as both sides begin to move on and the followers of Cardiff City FC must be allowed to do the same too!

I think it went like this Sam "I want my money " club "only if you say who Langston are " Sam " OK its bloody me I'm sick of being mugged off " club " you can have 5 million and 2 million if we ever go up " Sam " no problem I hated you sheep shaggers any way I'm off to ruin another club abroad

Steve (Daya)

Chris Nott (with some humour) admitted to being slightly unprofessional in as much as he is an admitted Cardiff City FC supporter and had a personal interest in seeing things through!

Do you really think that when not came to the professional/legal nitty gritty he wouldn't have done his job professionally?

I have no big issue with you, you know that, but I'm not sure what you are up to tonight?

Sam took Tan to Court, both sides met and thrashed an 'out of Court' agreement that likely had confidentiality clauses within it and a deal was struck with the club agreeing to pay all the money back in two phases (if you include the Premier League clause) and Sam admitting he was (shock, horror!) the man behind the mysterious Langston

That's it, fella! The case appears closed and I am sure some of the finer detail will never be revealed as both sides begin to move on and the followers of Cardiff City FC must be allowed to do the same too!

Sven / my friend / mate

Sam took Cardiff to court and won, albeit settled out of court obtaining payment as a court would instruct in 30 days. This wouldn't have seen Nott up all weekend slicing pizza !

Truth be told Langston had them over a barrel and Cardiff City had no choice to settle.

Ask for the proof of the Hammam admitence from your Chairman or his pizza chomping chump, they have no reason not to show you do they as they spouting it in the press !!!

Put your chairman to the test and ask for the evidence !

Steve (Daya)

Chris Nott (with some humour) admitted to being slightly unprofessional in as much as he is an admitted Cardiff City FC supporter and had a personal interest in seeing things through!

Do you really think that when not came to the professional/legal nitty gritty he wouldn't have done his job professionally?

I have no big issue with you, you know that, but I'm not sure what you are up to tonight?

Sam took Tan to Court, both sides met and thrashed an 'out of Court' agreement that likely had confidentiality clauses within it and a deal was struck with the club agreeing to pay all the money back in two phases (if you include the Premier League clause) and Sam admitting he was (shock, horror!) the man behind the mysterious Langston

That's it, fella! The case appears closed and I am sure some of the finer detail will never be revealed as both sides begin to move on and the followers of Cardiff City FC must be allowed to do the same too!

I think it went like this Sam "I want my money " club "only if you say who Langston are " Sam " OK its bloody me I'm sick of being mugged off " club " you can have 5 million and 2 million if we ever go up " Sam " no problem I hated you sheep shaggers any way I'm off to ruin another club abroad