‘ Sam and Tan settle out of court ‘

I suppose it's just wishful thinking that this is the last ever thread about Tan this Sam that we'll ever see.Sam and Tan have drawn a line.Now would be a good time for all to do the same.IMHO

Depends I guess on what the terms of the settlement were. What's stopping Sam trying to get involved in some capacity once VT has gone?

So where is Tan going ?

As far as I know, nowhere.
You can be certain though that he won't be around for ever.

Neither will any of us.

I suppose it's just wishful thinking that this is the last ever thread about Tan this Sam that we'll ever see.Sam and Tan have drawn a line.Now would be a good time for all to do the same.IMHO

Depends I guess on what the terms of the settlement were. What's stopping Sam trying to get involved in some capacity once VT has gone?

So where is Tan going ?

As far as I know, nowhere.
You can be certain though that he won't be around for ever.

Neither will any of us.

Unfortunately very true

I'm not sure about others but my feeling is that ownership could go in many directions now.

If Tan wins the remaining court cases or comes to a satisfactory conclusion then, in my eyes, that makes the club either a more saleable proposition or will allow slightly more investment in the squad as a result of the moneys, previously earmarked, becoming available. All subject to FFP limitations of course.

If we lose both remaining cases (particularly the Sala case as it's higher in value) then I just can't see any change in either ownership or investment levels for a good while. The debt would be prohibitive to prospective owners and Tan will want to try an recoup at least a good proportion of his money before selling.

Interesting times. But I think we'll all be keeping our fingers crossed for the outcomes of these two cases.

It's not over yet. Tan has got to pay Sam. Don't be surprised if court action is brought up in a years time.

It's not over yet. Tan has got to pay Sam. Don't be surprised if court action is brought up in a years time.

There’s no precedent of Tan not paying what he (or others) owe.

It's not over yet. Tan has got to pay Sam. Don't be surprised if court action is brought up in a years time.

Tan paid the monies in full on the last agreement so will likely pay this time too ,sam was suing not for the monies was suing him for the benefits that he said he didn't recieve from the last agreement.

It's not over yet. Tan has got to pay Sam. Don't be surprised if court action is brought up in a years time.

There’s no precedent of Tan not paying what he (or others) owe.

Agree.

It's not over yet. Tan has got to pay Sam. Don't be surprised if court action is brought up in a years time.

There’s no precedent of Tan not paying what he (or others) owe.

Agree.

Oh here they are Bill and Ben the Flower pot men with Tan in the middle.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

This is the best outcome for the club, Tan and Sam.

It’s unlikely that anyone got exact what they wanted and also unlikely that anyone independent, other than the judge, will ever know the exact terms of the agreement.

I have to take issue with the comment “ The fact that the case was settled out of court showed the strong position Sam had and that Tan did not have confidence to win in a court of law.” It also could be argued that Sam didn’t have the confidence to win in a court of law, if he did he wouldn’t have settled as if he won the case Tan would have had to pay all costs as well as the judgment amount the judge awarded.

There will have been huge amounts of costs for both sides, and court fees for Sam as the claimant, that will have already been incurred and will be payable by both sides. A case being settled merely reduces the “trial” costs but even those will still be pretty costly for both sides as barristers are booked, trial bundles prepared, etc., all of which cost serious money in these big civil cases.

The simple thing is that this is a compromise for both sides and that is fact. People like us can’t really read anything into the merits of the case because we just don’t know the full details of both sides cases.

However, it does bring this to a satisfactory conclusion for both sides. Tan gets to keep Sam away from the club and Sam gets at least some of the money he was owed/deserved.

Onwards and upwards.

The above post is the
Best post on this matter
No bias helps ?

It's not over yet. Tan has got to pay Sam. Don't be surprised if court action is brought up in a years time.

There’s no precedent of Tan not paying what he (or others) owe.

Agree.

Oh here they are Bill and Ben the Flower pot men with Tan in the middle.

When you lose the debate and resort to childish name calling then that reflects badly on you Ian.

I know you don’t like hearing the truth regarding Tan but still.

It's not over yet. Tan has got to pay Sam. Don't be surprised if court action is brought up in a years time.

There’s no precedent of Tan not paying what he (or others) owe.

Agree.

Oh here they are Bill and Ben the Flower pot men with Tan in the middle.

Childish

It's not over yet. Tan has got to pay Sam. Don't be surprised if court action is brought up in a years time.

There’s no precedent of Tan not paying what he (or others) owe.

Agree.

Oh here they are Bill and Ben the Flower pot men with Tan in the middle.

When you lose the debate and resort to childish name calling then that reflects badly on you Ian.

I know you don’t like hearing the truth regarding Tan but still.

Agree ,makes him look a bit simple .

It's not over yet. Tan has got to pay Sam. Don't be surprised if court action is brought up in a years time.

There’s no precedent of Tan not paying what he (or others) owe.

Agree.

Oh here they are Bill and Ben the Flower pot men with Tan in the middle.

When you lose the debate and resort to childish name calling then that reflects badly on you Ian.

I know you don’t like hearing the truth regarding Tan but still.

Agree ,makes him look a bit simple .

Well you could be childish too and use the same analogy back but with Sam in the middle and him and certain other posters by his side

Whoops, lowering myself again

Remarkable that one side of the argument likes to simply undermine as opposed to actually dealing with the facts as far as we know them

It's not over yet. Tan has got to pay Sam. Don't be surprised if court action is brought up in a years time.

There’s no precedent of Tan not paying what he (or others) owe.

Agree.

Oh here they are Bill and Ben the Flower pot men with Tan in the middle.

When you lose the debate and resort to childish name calling then that reflects badly on you Ian.

I know you don’t like hearing the truth regarding Tan but still.

Agree ,makes him look a bit simple .

Thing is he really isn’t. Apart from then it comes to Tan. It takes 100 off his IQ.

You two need to get a sense of humour.

You two need to get a sense of humour.

Ha ha I had my tongue in my cheek. I thought you would have realised that.

You two need to get a sense of humour.

Ha ha I had my tongue in my cheek. I thought you would have realised that.

I have just stated what I saw before and the agreements and what I know.

What is in the local media has been done deliberately to Paul.

Saying less than should of been their is the stirrer and bullshit.

Fair play to BBC they just posted what the statement they both agreed on.


Most of you are guessing and believing the person you all want removed as you say he is Tans problem.

I know the truth and for me it’s good now for our club and Sam got what should of been paid years ago.

End off.

As you all say move on.

I have just stated what I saw before and the agreements and what I know.

What is in the local media has been done deliberately to Paul.

Saying less than should of been their is the stirrer and bullshit.

Fair play to BBC they just posted what the statement they both agreed on.


Most of you are guessing and believing the person you all want removed as you say he is Tans problem.

I know the truth and for me it’s good now for our club and Sam got what should of been paid years ago.

End off.

Is this a reply to my post asking you if sam told you about the statement Annis because now it seems someone has deleted my post, not saying it is you mind, but it was only a general enquiry and can see no reason whatsoever for it to be deleted

I have just stated what I saw before and the agreements and what I know.

What is in the local media has been done deliberately to Paul.

Saying less than should of been their is the stirrer and bullshit.

Fair play to BBC they just posted what the statement they both agreed on.


Most of you are guessing and believing the person you all want removed as you say he is Tans problem.

I know the truth and for me it’s good now for our club and Sam got what should of been paid years ago.

End off.

Is this a reply to my post asking you if sam told you about the statement Annis because now it seems someone has deleted my post, not saying it is you mind, but it was only a general enquiry and can see no reason whatsoever for it to be deleted

I think there have been a few posts deleted, including one of mine, but in this instance it's understandable.

There may well be non-disclosure agreements as part of this settlement and if any party can be proved to have disclosed the terms of the settlement to anyone unconnected with the case the agreement will be threatened and there could be significant monetary consequences.

Just my take on it.

I have just stated what I saw before and the agreements and what I know.

What is in the local media has been done deliberately to Paul.

Saying less than should of been their is the stirrer and bullshit.

Fair play to BBC they just posted what the statement they both agreed on.


Most of you are guessing and believing the person you all want removed as you say he is Tans problem.

I know the truth and for me it’s good now for our club and Sam got what should of been paid years ago.

End off.

Is this a reply to my post asking you if sam told you about the statement Annis because now it seems someone has deleted my post, not saying it is you mind, but it was only a general enquiry and can see no reason whatsoever for it to be deleted

I think there have been a few posts deleted, including one of mine, but in this instance it's understandable.

There may well be non-disclosure agreements as part of this settlement and if any party can be proved to have disclosed the terms of the settlement to anyone unconnected with the case the agreement will be threatened and there could be significant monetary consequences.

Just my take on it.

I see what you are saying, also notice that the Annis post I was referring to has been deleted as well, would of been nice if the moderators had PMd me and explained why it was deleted, then there would be no confusion, I would of certainly accepted it if they had the courtesy to explain why.