i must admit sam hamman wouldnt have

taken that crap off leeds united no wonder they are the most hated club in the country

who cares, he not here anymore

Nataman,

Is he not ?

He is in London right now discussing City, thats all I will say for now

any reason why you cant tell the supporters whats happening?

Because the supporters don't have a right to know the ins and outs of any financial situations at the club while there is ongoing discussions!

taken that crap off leeds united no wonder they are the most hated club in the country

who cares, he not here anymore

Nataman,

Is he not ?

He is in London right now discussing City, thats all I will say for now

any reason why you cant tell the supporters whats happening?

Because the supporters don't have a right to know the ins and outs of any financial situations at the club while there is ongoing discussions!

better to have said nothing in the first place then innit

I can't wait until all this sam stuff is over and done with so we can just move on and leave his time in the past....we have new owners, lets try getting behind them instead of living in the past

Are the Mals owners then? I thuoght they were just major share holders. I didn't know they had over 50% and so are owners?

they are calling all the shots......same horse different jockey

Well mate the answer is very simple. Either give him what he's owed or give him his club back. It's simple really. I'm sure if I or you stopped paying the people we owe money to then they'd keep going on about it until the debt was settled. We're all, and no doubt Sam himself, are pissed off with this debt thing. To be fair though, the club has had plenty of time and options to sort it out but have chosen not to. That's not Sam's fault and I'm sure that if it was me then I'd be shouting a lot louder than Sam has to be fair to him.

Firstly. Sam would have told Leeds to stick their restrictions up their arses, and would
have charged Leeds £50 a ticket for TEN tickets, but only for respectable Leeds supporters
over 65 years old who could bring their mams and dads. And we'd have f*cking loved him
for it.

Secondly... Its not Sams Club. There is not ONE scenario where Sam is saying HE borrowed
the 24m from Langstone. Because if that was the case, surely it would be Sam that owed
them the 24m?

I can't wait until all this sam stuff is over and done with so we can just move on and leave his time in the past....we have new owners, lets try getting behind them instead of living in the past

Are the Mals owners then? I thuoght they were just major share holders. I didn't know they had over 50% and so are owners?

they are calling all the shots......same horse different jockey

Well mate the answer is very simple. Either give him what he's owed or give him his club back. It's simple really. I'm sure if I or you stopped paying the people we owe money to then they'd keep going on about it until the debt was settled. We're all, and no doubt Sam himself, are pissed off with this debt thing. To be fair though, the club has had plenty of time and options to sort it out but have chosen not to. That's not Sam's fault and I'm sure that if it was me then I'd be shouting a lot louder than Sam has to be fair to him.

But the question is and always has been: who instigated the debt (sam!) and who is the debt owed to (sam!) which raises questions in my head and many other's

Sam would have made a noise about this for sure.

He wouldn't have cared about any bad feedback for tit for tat stuff, as any publicity is good publicity to him.

I think he may have provided free buses for fans and then made a statement.
I hope he would have penalised the dirty leeds fans that came here as it was not of their making.

love him or loathe him - a charcter in football he was.
Not a faceless millionaire playing monopoly with our football clubs.

(i suppose they all play monopoly with our clubs!)

I'm also sure that Bruce Forsyth would have handled the debt crisis differently!

Hes not faceless?

Erm...yes he is. Faceless Langston.

Hes not faceless?

Erm...yes he is. Faceless Langston.

Tut tut Polo

Hes not faceless?

Erm...yes he is. Faceless Langston.

Tut tut Polo

Cmon Annis its the worst kept secret in football.

Hes not faceless?

Erm...yes he is. Faceless Langston.

Tut tut Polo

Cmon Annis its the worst kept secret in football.

Sam admits he put Langston together .

Why do people insist on knowing the identity of investors of a hedge fund? Should I go round to Barclays and demand to know "who the money men are" in their bank and refuse to pay them another penny until they give me every single detail? Or would they just tell me to piss off, none of my business?

Why do people insist on knowing the identity of investors of a hedge fund? Should I go round to Barclays and demand to know "who the money men are" in their bank and refuse to pay them another penny until they give me every single detail? Or would they just tell me to piss off, none of my business?

When said person is trying to take money off this club to pay a debt he ran up I think we have a right to know.

Why do people insist on knowing the identity of investors of a hedge fund? Should I go round to Barclays and demand to know "who the money men are" in their bank and refuse to pay them another penny until they give me every single detail? Or would they just tell me to piss off, none of my business?

When said person is trying to take money off this club to pay a debt he ran up I think we have a right to know.

So if I go in to Barclays and get a loan off them, they need to firstly tell me exactly who's money I'm borrowing?

So it's "yes Berwyn, here's 10 grand and it belongs to a Mr Smith from Tonteg who's looking for a better return than the 2% he's currently getting. With you making regular repayments he'll get up to 6%. This is why Mr Smith, who is married to Anne and has two kids named Mark and Tracey, is willing to lend you the money".

Phew!! Aern't Barclays lucky they gave me that info otherwise if I didn't know it was Mr Smith then I could have told them I'm not going to pay back anything!

Why do people insist on knowing the identity of investors of a hedge fund? Should I go round to Barclays and demand to know "who the money men are" in their bank and refuse to pay them another penny until they give me every single detail? Or would they just tell me to piss off, none of my business?

When said person is trying to take money off this club to pay a debt he ran up I think we have a right to know.

So if I go in to Barclays and get a loan off them, they need to firstly tell me exactly who's money I'm borrowing?

So it's "yes Berwyn, here's 10 grand and it belongs to a Mr Smith from Tonteg who's looking for a better return than the 2% he's currently getting. With you making regular repayments he'll get up to 6%. This is why Mr Smith, who is married to Anne and has two kids named Mark and Tracey, is willing to lend you the money".

Phew!! Aern't Barclays lucky they gave me that info otherwise if I didn't know it was Mr Smith then I could have told them I'm not going to pay back anything!

Hedgefund

You mean Sam "pretended" to set up a hedgefund so he could rape Cardiff City for all its worth.

Wake up and smell the coffee

There's nothing pretended about it. My eyes are wide open here. The didn't have to borrow the money, it could have stayed in the 4th divsion if it wanted to and continued slippling out of the league and out of business.

Fact is when he left the club had salable assets that if sold would have paid him off. They chose to sell those assets anyway and not pay him off. That was down to them not Sam. And hasn't the debts grown a tad more since he left with no playing assets to show for it?.

Shall I get you a nice strong espresso?

There's nothing pretended about it. My eyes are wide open here. The didn't have to borrow the money, it could have stayed in the 4th divsion if it wanted to and continued slippling out of the league and out of business.

Fact is when he left the club had salable assets that if sold would have paid him off. They chose to sell those assets anyway and not pay him off. That was down to them not Sam. And hasn't the debts grown a tad more since he left with no playing assets to show for it?.

Shall I get you a nice strong espresso?

You think all the money borrowed went to the club?.

You take that Espresso you are getting me and take a big slug of it.

Why do people insist on knowing the identity of investors of a hedge fund? Should I go round to Barclays and demand to know "who the money men are" in their bank and refuse to pay them another penny until they give me every single detail? Or would they just tell me to piss off, none of my business?

When said person is trying to take money off this club to pay a debt he ran up I think we have a right to know.

So if I go in to Barclays and get a loan off them, they need to firstly tell me exactly who's money I'm borrowing?

So it's "yes Berwyn, here's 10 grand and it belongs to a Mr Smith from Tonteg who's looking for a better return than the 2% he's currently getting. With you making regular repayments he'll get up to 6%. This is why Mr Smith, who is married to Anne and has two kids named Mark and Tracey, is willing to lend you the money".

Phew!! Aern't Barclays lucky they gave me that info otherwise if I didn't know it was Mr Smith then I could have told them I'm not going to pay back anything!

berwyn

if you google barclays you will find out who the current md is etc
try googling langston and see what you get.
The problem here is if sam is langston he has lent money to himself, spent that money including on consultancy fee's for himself and now wants to charge interest to himself.
all totally illegal hence no court case to date

Thing is though Steve, that's all I ever see from the anti-Sam movement is lots of assumptions and if's. If Sam this then if Sam that. Then people make firm conclusions based on those if's. I don't think it's fair to slate the guy based on if's. Whenever people try to side with Sam then they are asked to produce "evidence" etc.

Lets suppose Sam was clever enough to hide all this behind Langston. Don't you think he'd be clever enough to hide his involvement anyway? So to assume that's the reason behind no court case is well wide of the mark. Like I said before though, it doesn't matter who the investors are, the money is owed. Simple as that, live with it and stop looking for ways around paying the debts. Isn't the Langston thing only there because Citibank called their debt in? If that's the case then shouldn't we be a little bit greatful for Langston for stepping in and manning up to the responsiblity?

in my opinion sam is/was not out of pocket

Thing is though Steve, that's all I ever see from the anti-Sam movement is lots of assumptions and if's. If Sam this then if Sam that. Then people make firm conclusions based on those if's. I don't think it's fair to slate the guy based on if's. Whenever people try to side with Sam then they are asked to produce "evidence" etc.

Lets suppose Sam was clever enough to hide all this behind Langston. Don't you think he'd be clever enough to hide his involvement anyway? So to assume that's the reason behind no court case is well wide of the mark. Like I said before though, it doesn't matter who the investors are, the money is owed. Simple as that, live with it and stop looking for ways around paying the debts. Isn't the Langston thing only there because Citibank called their debt in? If that's the case then shouldn't we be a little bit greatful for Langston for stepping in and manning up to the responsiblity?

Berwyn
firstly im not anti sam i just try to provide the other side of the argument.
with regards to the citibank debt as i have said earlier in the thread that debt was run up by sam himself we were 1.5 million in debt when he took the club over so he ran the debt up himself by amongst other things paying players 6 time the amount of wages they actually requested. Was that within the best interests of the club.
My problem has always been that myself and a few other supporters including directors were present when sam said (when asked where the money was coming from) that the debt was his and when he left the club the debt left with him.
That was blatant lie as that has not been the case.
I think that sam should get some of his money back not all of it but the malaysians are equally entitled to question how that debt was run up and especially the irresponsible way money was spent on players contracts and the bonuses paid out for scoring goals with one player alleged to get 10k a week

in my opinion sam is/was not out of pocket

i would like to add im not against sam hammam having made money from the club but i dont buy into the sam was out of pocket rumours.

Thing is though Steve, that's all I ever see from the anti-Sam movement is lots of assumptions and if's. If Sam this then if Sam that. Then people make firm conclusions based on those if's. I don't think it's fair to slate the guy based on if's. Whenever people try to side with Sam then they are asked to produce "evidence" etc.

Lets suppose Sam was clever enough to hide all this behind Langston. Don't you think he'd be clever enough to hide his involvement anyway? So to assume that's the reason behind no court case is well wide of the mark. Like I said before though, it doesn't matter who the investors are, the money is owed. Simple as that, live with it and stop looking for ways around paying the debts. Isn't the Langston thing only there because Citibank called their debt in? If that's the case then shouldn't we be a little bit greatful for Langston for stepping in and manning up to the responsiblity?

Berwyn
firstly im not anti sam i just try to provide the other side of the argument.
with regards to the citibank debt as i have said earlier in the thread that debt was run up by sam himself we were 1.5 million in debt when he took the club over so he ran the debt up himself by amongst other things paying players 6 time the amount of wages they actually requested. Was that within the best interests of the club.
My problem has always been that myself and a few other supporters including directors were present when sam said (when asked where the money was coming from) that the debt was his and when he left the club the debt left with him.
That was blatant lie as that has not been the case.
I think that sam should get some of his money back not all of it but the malaysians are equally entitled to question how that debt was run up and especially the irresponsible way money was spent on players contracts and the bonuses paid out for scoring goals with one player alleged to get 10k a week

that should have said 10k a goal

Steve
I don't think it's fair though to pick over how the money was spent when you could equally pick over how money has been spent since by others who are not getting slated.

Regards the 10k per goal. That was Peter Thorne and it was a typo in his contract. Sam agreed 1k per goal but when he came to sign it his agent noticed the typo and rushed PT in to signing it for before anyone noticed. Hardly Sam's fault. The club owed PT 150k for scoring 15 goals. However when he asked for his money Dave Jones told him to whistle for it. Thorny never got paid that in the end anyway. I also know that the managers struggled like hell to get quality players in due to the bad reputation the club had back then. They had to offer more than the other clubs to get them in. Alan Cork, Lennie and DJ will all tell you this was true if you ask them. I didn't see one post from anyone complaining when we were signing these players.

The confidence in the club was also very low and that was a massive challenge for Sam to get people to beleive in the club, and that included people worknig there as well as the fans. If he had to tell the odd porkie to do that then great. If he hadn't the club would have been talked out of existance by the local press, the fans and the people working there. I'm still waiting for a certain journo to run naked down Sloper Road after laughing at the idea of us getting a new stadium. Whenever you told anyone that we were going on a journey up the divisions they would openly laugh in your face and that included long time fans.

As for the Malaysians. I'm not sure they do have the right to nit pick now. There's no suprises here, they knew what they were getting into. It's a bit late to nit pick afterwards.

I can't wait until all this sam stuff is over and done with so we can just move on and leave his time in the past....we have new owners, lets try getting behind them instead of living in the past

Are the Mals owners then? I thuoght they were just major share holders. I didn't know they had over 50% and so are owners?

they are calling all the shots......same horse different jockey

Well mate the answer is very simple. Either give him what he's owed or give him his club back. It's simple really. I'm sure if I or you stopped paying the people we owe money to then they'd keep going on about it until the debt was settled. We're all, and no doubt Sam himself, are pissed off with this debt thing. To be fair though, the club has had plenty of time and options to sort it out but have chosen not to. That's not Sam's fault and I'm sure that if it was me then I'd be shouting a lot louder than Sam has to be fair to him.

Firstly. Sam would have told Leeds to stick their restrictions up their arses, and would
have charged Leeds £50 a ticket for TEN tickets, but only for respectable Leeds supporters
over 65 years old who could bring their mams and dads. And we'd have f*cking loved him
for it.

Secondly... Its not Sams Club. There is not ONE scenario where Sam is saying HE borrowed
the 24m from Langstone. Because if that was the case, surely it would be Sam that owed
them the 24m?

how many bubble trips did we have under sam? or only allowed to travel with selected supporters clubs?

how many bubble trips did we have under sam? or only allowed to travel with selected supporters clubs?

Fact is though the reputation of the club was probably one of the worst in European football before Sam arrived. How can anyone blame him for that? Just after Sam arrived we had one match which I saw the figures for and David Temme said "look at this police bill for the small number of fans we'll get, we'd be better off giving the fans £5 each when they turn up and telling them to f*** off".
That was the state of the club back then. People have such short selective memories.

how many bubble trips did we have under sam? or only allowed to travel with selected supporters clubs?

Fact is though the reputation of the club was probably one of the worst in European football before Sam arrived. How can anyone blame him for that? Just after Sam arrived we had one match which I saw the figures for and David Temme said "look at this police bill for the small number of fans we'll get, we'd be better off giving the fans £5 each when they turn up and telling them to f*** off".
That was the state of the club back then. People have such short selective memories.

i was replying to a post where someone said sam would have told leeds to f**k off so i wanted to know which clubs who put restrictions on us under sam were told to f**k off ....
you seem to know alot can i ask what was your role in the club back then? cheers

how many bubble trips did we have under sam? or only allowed to travel with selected supporters clubs?

Fact is though the reputation of the club was probably one of the worst in European football before Sam arrived. How can anyone blame him for that? Just after Sam arrived we had one match which I saw the figures for and David Temme said "look at this police bill for the small number of fans we'll get, we'd be better off giving the fans £5 each when they turn up and telling them to f*** off".
That was the state of the club back then. People have such short selective memories.

i was replying to a post where someone said sam would have told leeds to f**k off so i wanted to know which clubs who put restrictions on us under sam were told to f**k off ....
you seem to know alot can i ask what was your role in the club back then? cheers

IT Manager

Steve
I don't think it's fair though to pick over how the money was spent when you could equally pick over how money has been spent since by others who are not getting slated.

Regards the 10k per goal. That was Peter Thorne and it was a typo in his contract. Sam agreed 1k per goal but when he came to sign it his agent noticed the typo and rushed PT in to signing it for before anyone noticed. Hardly Sam's fault. The club owed PT 150k for scoring 15 goals. However when he asked for his money Dave Jones told him to whistle for it. Thorny never got paid that in the end anyway. I also know that the managers struggled like hell to get quality players in due to the bad reputation the club had back then. They had to offer more than the other clubs to get them in. Alan Cork, Lennie and DJ will all tell you this was true if you ask them. I didn't see one post from anyone complaining when we were signing these players.

The confidence in the club was also very low and that was a massive challenge for Sam to get people to beleive in the club, and that included people worknig there as well as the fans. If he had to tell the odd porkie to do that then great. If he hadn't the club would have been talked out of existance by the local press, the fans and the people working there. I'm still waiting for a certain journo to run naked down Sloper Road after laughing at the idea of us getting a new stadium. Whenever you told anyone that we were going on a journey up the divisions they would openly laugh in your face and that included long time fans.

As for the Malaysians. I'm not sure they do have the right to nit pick now. There's no suprises here, they knew what they were getting into. It's a bit late to nit pick afterwards.

berwyn

i agree with virtually all those comments to be honest but it was still sam and sam alone who made all those decisions.
You know as well as i do how much of a dictator he was on times and he made those decisions alone.
Its a bit rich for him to expect all that money back and expect new investors to cough up for his overspend after all only paddy power refund losing bets.

Steve
I just think there are lots of things being said that just not true and so not really fair. I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of gossip and lies and it's not nice. Lets be honest, your average village fishwife gossip has nothing on a Cardiff fan when it comes to having a good chin wag.

As you know Sam isn't an angel and was a nightmare to work for at times. I think a lot of what is being said is where he's being judged on today's situation with the club. They've got it a hell of a lot easier now that is for certain.

The biggest problem Sam had and the one single thing that caused the debts was the shear negativity of the local press. They were hell bent on talking down the club. The only person who was positive was Terry Phillips. Every single other press person be that TV, radio, newspaper was always on the hunt to shoot the club down. They'll all deny it now but I remember their little jokes and comments they made behind the scenes.

Remember when we got promoted from league 2? Whilst all the fans were on the pitch celebrating I was in the press box at the back of the GS. I overheard a conversation between two well known Welsh commentators. "Do you think Cardiff will stay up this time round because of these players he's brought in?; "What? You honestly think they'll still be here come the start of the next season?"; "Yeah, ya right, they'll sell them off and make a quick profit. You've got to feel sorry for these fans (laugh) they'll all be crying this time next year hey!"

That was typical of the feelings around at the time and Sam was constantly being asked about selling players and listening to people telling him "Cardiff are a selling club, always have been and always will be."

In the real world the only way to survive in the lower leagues is to build players and sell them on. That is the only way to balance the books. Sam knows this, everyone knows this and it was something he should have done simply because the out goings are always more than your income. Bring a few in, build them, keep one and sell the rest. That sort of thing. But he was under immense pressure regarding Cardiff being a selling club and under constant pressure to try and breath a little bit of life and self belief in to the club.

For the first few years at the club, Sam couldn't get rid or sell anyone and so the books were never going to balance. What he should have done, like I said, was ignored the pressure and sold players when it made sense to do so. Obviously this strategy where he was bullied in to not selling could never last forever and yes he was forced in to dealing in the market again. And the best pert is when he did, he made some great moves. Out went Ginge and Gabbs and in came Loovens and Rog. He should have started long before things came to a head.

He was also let down by a lot of people as well if the truth be known.

It's amazing how people can so easily wipe their hands and pile blame elsewhere when it suits. The fans themselves have to take responsibility as well for a lot of the spending that was going on down there as well. Some of the player names being thrown about was incredible, people on the phone to Sam telling who to go and get, people choose to forget that now just because it suits.

When we were back in the 4th division the best striker was Bobby Zamora who was with Brighton. Sam made offers but Brighton came back taunting Sam about how much they wanted. He didn't give in to the pressure in the end but you could tell he considered the £3m asking price. That's how much the pressure was on him at the time. But people forget about that now. It's just easier to blame Sam.

I honestly believe it will all be sorted once and for all this season

City are first what ever happens, but I also back Sam as everyone knows.

I honestly believe it will all be sorted once and for all this season

City are first what ever happens, but I also back Sam as everyone knows.

I cant see our malaysian owners and sam working together