Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:46 pm
wez1927 wrote:Daya wrote:wez1927 wrote:Had a message from someone I know who is connected to the goings on at Cardiff City and is always 100% correct I have no doubt that this is correct
"The first court hearing last week tans barrister asked that if it proceeded to the high court could they have full disclosure of who Langston were as it was never tans debt but inherited from the time Sam had run the club. The judge allowed that if they went to court there would be full disclosure.
A week later there is an amicable deal where Sam has to pay for his own court and legal costs. Why because Sam did not want disclosure in the high court.
My daughter in law worked as part of the team for capital law on the case so 100 percent Sam was Langston."
Hi Wezz,
Not too many have a daughter in law at capital law, so of course I know your contact !!!
So I think the best option is to see what Mr Nott has to say and comeback with, I'm sure your fed up as a Cardiff City fan of Chinese
whispers.
Where and when since the agreement has tan saidbhes not langston
I have to say I'm intrigued for the first time in years, only one can be telling the truth , Nott or Hammam.
Nott can obviously reveal the facts because he's already told the press in a statement made by himself, if he doesn't he's obviously a bullshitter and not a solicitor to be used in the future and in fact capital law should remove him if it's the case, who wants a lying a solicitor ?
There again , if he can back it up, let's be honest here he's told the press its fact, then Scam should never even be allowed to enter Wales let alone Cardiff !!
SH claims its bullshit, now we await the Nott response !
I know who I believe and it's not the hill Walker
Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:51 pm
wez1927 wrote:Daya wrote:wez1927 wrote:Had a message from someone I know who is connected to the goings on at Cardiff City and is always 100% correct I have no doubt that this is correct
"The first court hearing last week tans barrister asked that if it proceeded to the high court could they have full disclosure of who Langston were as it was never tans debt but inherited from the time Sam had run the club. The judge allowed that if they went to court there would be full disclosure.
A week later there is an amicable deal where Sam has to pay for his own court and legal costs. Why because Sam did not want disclosure in the high court.
My daughter in law worked as part of the team for capital law on the case so 100 percent Sam was Langston."
Chris Nott here's his number + 961 3376732 or UK mobile 07809 461332
Hi Wezz,
Not too many have a daughter in law at capital law, so of course I know your contact !!!
So I think the best option is to see what Mr Nott has to say and comeback with, I'm sure your fed up as a Cardiff City fan of Chinese whispers.
I have to say I'm intrigued for the first time in years, only one can be telling the truth , Nott or Hammam.
Nott can obviously reveal the facts because he's already told the press in a statement made by himself, if he doesn't he's obviously a bullshitter and not a solicitor to be used in the future and in fact capital law should remove him if it's the case, who wants a lying a solicitor ?
There again , if he can back it up, let's be honest here he's told the press its fact, then Scam should never even be allowed to enter Wales let alone Cardiff !!
SH claims its bullshit, now we await the Nott response !
I know who I believe and it's not the hill Walker
Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:59 pm