Sam's looking well

Why do people keep referring to Langston as Langstone,there is no 'e' in it.
The reason why the Malaysians haven't settled the Langston debt is quite simply because they dont have to!
The Malaysians own 49% of the club and the Langston debt is completely unsecured,all or most of the debt owed to the Malaysians,PMG and other sundry creditors has been converted into shares and will take preference over anything owed to Langston in the event of administration,not to mention the reversion of the lease over the stadium land to Cardiff City Council.In any case, the view of most legal pundits is that the Langston debt is legally unenforceable if Sam Hammam is Langston,certainly the view expressed by Lord Justice Briggs in Sam's failed application for summary judgement,because the directors rules pertaining to Fiduciary Relationship will have been breached.
In other words,the Malaysians have Sam stuck behind the 8 ball.One only has to read Joe Sedbrook's book Asian Godfathers to know that Sam is completely out of his depth.

Well summarized, that's it in a nutshell, tucked up like a fooking kipper

Why do people keep referring to Langston as Langstone,there is no 'e' in it.
The reason why the Malaysians haven't settled the Langston debt is quite simply because they dont have to!
The Malaysians own 49% of the club and the Langston debt is completely unsecured,all or most of the debt owed to the Malaysians,PMG and other sundry creditors has been converted into shares and will take preference over anything owed to Langston in the event of administration,not to mention the reversion of the lease over the stadium land to Cardiff City Council.In any case, the view of most legal pundits is that the Langston debt is legally unenforceable if Sam Hammam is Langston,certainly the view expressed by Lord Justice Briggs in Sam's failed application for summary judgement,because the directors rules pertaining to Fiduciary Relationship will have been breached.
In other words,the Malaysians have Sam stuck behind the 8 ball.One only has to read Joe Sedbrook's book Asian Godfathers to know that Sam is completely out of his depth.

Are you suggesting that the lease of the land would switch to the council if Sam came back to the club? Is that legal? I mean Sam hasn't done anything wrong, he's not been convicted of any crime so can the council put a little ditty in the contract that say's "If Sam has anything to do with the club then we want the land back" or 20 pages of legal bollox that says that?

I think that is very simplistic to be fair. Lets supposed that it was okay to name a single person in that way, it would still be impossible to enforce. How many people for instance get banned from owning a company yet they still run under their wife's name, etc, etc. If this were the case what would stop a "Business man" from God knows where turning up? Lets not forget that Sam has not been banned or even had reason to be banned. So on what grounds would the council have to discriminate in this way?

As for the Lord Jusice Biggs thing that you keep harping on about. Sam was never going to win that case, he knew that. Basically he wanted the court to say that the club "had no case to answer". Biggs quite simply said that the club does have a side to the story, simple as that. Everyone, even Jack the Ripper, has a side to a story. So it was hardly likely that Biggs was going to say that club didn't. You keep reading, and relying on, so much from the summary judgement, but it was a very simple fast case that had a very simple outcome.

It's illegal to lend a company money from another one of your own companies and charge extortiante interest rates. Sam wont take this to court as he would be outed as langston officially. The malaysians know this, Sam knows the Malaysians know this and the malaysians know that sam knows that the malaysians know this

It's illegal to lend a company money from another one of your own companies and charge extortiante interest rates. Sam wont take this to court as he would be outed as langston officially. The malaysians know this, Sam knows the Malaysians know this and the malaysians know that sam knows that the malaysians know this

Extortionate amounts of interest? Really? And you can back that up can you? No? Thought not. You'll be telling us next that he tortured puppies by pulling their little tails off. I mean, f*cking hell, street corners don't need any old women with people like you around do they.

It's illegal to lend a company money from another one of your own companies and charge extortiante interest rates. Sam wont take this to court as he would be outed as langston officially. The malaysians know this, Sam knows the Malaysians know this and the malaysians know that sam knows that the malaysians know this

Extortionate amounts of interest? Really? And you can back that up can you? No? Thought not. You'll be telling us next that he tortured puppies by pulling their little tails off. I mean, f*cking hell, street corners don't need any old women with people like you around do they.

Well, if you read all the loan notes that keep getting pushed on this site, you would know!

And? He was denied leave to appeal that summary judgement, that's all. Regards the admin etc. You really think that admin is that simple? You should know that in admin all sorts of new problems throw themsleves up. Land leases will be the least of anyone's concern. Lets be slightly realistic here is it.

Loads of experts in this thread lol

Why do people keep referring to Langston as Langstone,there is no 'e' in it.
The reason why the Malaysians haven't settled the Langston debt is quite simply because they dont have to!
The Malaysians own 49% of the club and the Langston debt is completely unsecured,all or most of the debt owed to the Malaysians,PMG and other sundry creditors has been converted into shares and will take preference over anything owed to Langston in the event of administration,not to mention the reversion of the lease over the stadium land to Cardiff City Council.In any case, the view of most legal pundits is that the Langston debt is legally unenforceable if Sam Hammam is Langston,certainly the view expressed by Lord Justice Briggs in Sam's failed application for summary judgement,because the directors rules pertaining to Fiduciary Relationship will have been breached.
In other words,the Malaysians have Sam stuck behind the 8 ball.One only has to read Joe Sedbrook's book Asian Godfathers to know that Sam is completely out of his depth.

Are you suggesting that the lease of the land would switch to the council if Sam came back to the club? Is that legal? I mean Sam hasn't done anything wrong, he's not been convicted of any crime so can the council put a little ditty in the contract that say's "If Sam has anything to do with the club then we want the land back" or 20 pages of legal bollox that says that?

I think that is very simplistic to be fair. Lets supposed that it was okay to name a single person in that way, it would still be impossible to enforce. How many people for instance get banned from owning a company yet they still run under their wife's name, etc, etc. If this were the case what would stop a "Business man" from God knows where turning up? Lets not forget that Sam has not been banned or even had reason to be banned. So on what grounds would the council have to discriminate in this way?

As for the Lord Jusice Biggs thing that you keep harping on about. Sam was never going to win that case, he knew that. Basically he wanted the court to say that the club "had no case to answer". Biggs quite simply said that the club does have a side to the story, simple as that. Everyone, even Jack the Ripper, has a side to a story. So it was hardly likely that Biggs was going to say that club didn't. You keep reading, and relying on, so much from the summary judgement, but it was a very simple fast case that had a very simple outcome.

berwyn

the council have a covenant in place for 20 years on the stadium so nobody can sell or transfer anything without their permission.
It wasent done specifically because of sam but because of the fact that they had let the land go for a song and had to protect themselves in the long run from allowing anyone to mortgage or sell the stadium off against club debts.

Oh well then Steve, it looks like no one can touch that land, which is a great thing. Lets not assume though that it has ever been or will be threatened by Sam. That covenant just protects it that's all from everyone. The one poster just infers that it's solely protected from Sam that's all, so lets put that right.

And? He was denied leave to appeal that summary judgement, that's all.

But the content of the written judgemnt was important. Briggs LJ refused Langston's application for Summary Judgment on the grounds that "there is a reasonable prospect of the the Defendants (the Club) filing a successful defence" or words to that effect.

In legal terms that is quite a strong indication as to the final outcome of a case, hence Langston's reticence to take things any further.

And? He was denied leave to appeal that summary judgement, that's all.

But the content of the written judgemnt was important. Briggs LJ refused Langston's application for Summary Judgment on the grounds that "there is a reasonable prospect of the the Defendants (the Club) filing a successful defence" or words to that effect.

In legal terms that is quite a strong indication as to the final outcome of a case, hence Langston's reticence to take things any further.

No it's not. It means just what it says, nothing else.

here are Justice Briggs Words:

Judge Briggs stated that Langston’s claim was “plainly not a case for summary judgement”. He said the club “had a realistic prospect of establishing a defence” on each of the technicalities cited by the creditors as contraventions to the loan notes agreement. The judge refused Langston leave to appeal, saying: “I consider this to be a clear case and I do not consider that an appeal stands any reasonable chance of success.” He added: “In my judgement, the club has a real prospect of obtaining the remedy of rectification it seeks.”

Mr Justice Briggs concluded there was also a “real prospect” that a full trial would conclusively prove that Sam Hammam was “the governing mind and will” of the Langston Corporation at all times. His verdict was a resounding victory for the football club, who were awarded legal costs of around £80,000 at the plaintiff’s expense.

One thing is for sure though we had good times going up the leagues with sam even if it come with massive debt owed but going to grounds on a wet tuesday night with dry rott seats in where the terrace stank of piss with one portable toilet between 1000-1200 of us in they away end while it pissed down on us for 90mins they was the days we sang out loud in are droves and i can not remember one person who would moan we was singing or would give u a silly look because your getting behind the team unlike todays new fans, he then handed us over to the sharks mr riddler and co(land leaches) when we was 4points clear at the top of the championship ,the malaysians will be no diffrent once they turn us over to someone else they will want there super inflated loans back im sure thats how it goes though in football, he made mistakes but who dont in life.Now we are paying for it in the long run but where would we be without him who knows and i wouldnt like to think, What i will say is this they need to sort it out whats owned to him/langstone because sooner or later there has to be an end point or we could end up back in court. i would love it sorted so we can move on as the past is the past and should stay there

I'm sorry bluebird1977 but is that English? You mention in your joke photo about what is it Sam is trying to say, then you write something totally unreadable. Then this block of letters above appear. Now I'm not saying you have to be a master writer to post but, you know, but how hard can it be to press the "." button now and again?

I don't know about you worrying about the rights and wrongs in football, I think you should seriously consider suing your old English teacher. You were robbed.

It's a football forum....the standud of ingerlish is rubish.....gerrovarit

Sam Hammam is just Craig Whyte in a lebanese disguise.

sam can feck off

Sam Hammam is just Craig Whyte in a lebanese disguise.

thats tickled me

When people turn to sarcasm/snipes and taking the piss it means they know f**k all and cant put a decent debate up.




Of course Sam is the head of Langston, but he is not Langston, he is the head of a group of Lebanese business men, who Sam got together to lend the Club £24 mill, not Sams money, they want it back. I continue to watch everyone turn to snipes/jokes like they are because they dont know the truth/facts.


The truth/outcome will always come out in the end and the end is near.

here are Justice Briggs Words:

Judge Briggs stated that Langston’s claim was “plainly not a case for summary judgement”. He said the club “had a realistic prospect of establishing a defence” on each of the technicalities cited by the creditors as contraventions to the loan notes agreement. The judge refused Langston leave to appeal, saying: “I consider this to be a clear case and I do not consider that an appeal stands any reasonable chance of success.” He added: “In my judgement, the club has a real prospect of obtaining the remedy of rectification it seeks.”

Mr Justice Briggs concluded there was also a “real prospect” that a full trial would conclusively prove that Sam Hammam was “the governing mind and will” of the Langston Corporation at all times. His verdict was a resounding victory for the football club, who were awarded legal costs of around £80,000 at the plaintiff’s expense.

Thanks ! It's in the same terms as my earlier recollection and, believe me, that is as strong an indication of a potential outcome as you are likely to see at an interlocutory application stage like this.

When people turn to sarcasm/snipes and taking the piss it means they know f**k all and cant put a decent debate up.




Of course Sam is the head of Langston, but he is not Langston, he is the head of a group of Lebanese business men, who Sam got together to lend the Club £24 mill, not Sams money, they want it back. I continue to watch everyone turn to snipes/jokes like they are because they dont know the truth/facts.

Annis, thats contrary to what Gwyn said earlier though.

How is he a crook Jinx, he is one of the few people who actually lost his own money at our club rather than make a fortune from it, crooks steal things, what has he stolen, and unless I'm wrong we still owe him 24 million pounds ALA the Langstone debt, can you imagine any other people being prepared to wait this long for their money?

One thing is for sure though we had good times going up the leagues with sam even if it come with massive debt owed but going to grounds on a wet tuesday night with dry rott seats in where the terrace stank of piss with one portable toilet between 1000-1200 of us in they away end while it pissed down on us for 90mins they was the days we sang out loud in are droves and i can not remember one person who would moan we was singing or would give u a silly look because your getting behind the team unlike todays new fans, he then handed us over to the sharks mr riddler and co(land leaches) when we was 4points clear at the top of the championship ,the malaysians will be no diffrent once they turn us over to someone else they will want there super inflated loans back im sure thats how it goes though in football, he made mistakes but who dont in life.Now we are paying for it in the long run but where would we be without him who knows and i wouldnt like to think, What i will say is this they need to sort it out whats owned to him/langstone because sooner or later there has to be an end point or we could end up back in court. i would love it sorted so we can move on as the past is the past and should stay there

I'm sorry bluebird1977 but is that English? You mention in your joke photo about what is it Sam is trying to say, then you write something totally unreadable. Then this block of letters above appear. Now I'm not saying you have to be a master writer to post but, you know, but how hard can it be to press the "." button now and again?

I don't know about you worrying about the rights and wrongs in football, I think you should seriously consider suing your old English teacher. You were robbed.

It's a football forum....the standud of ingerlish is rubish.....gerrovarit

Well berwyn you old fart im sorry i did not go to a posh private school like yourself back in the 1950's or was it 40s for you??, i and most others understand what i posted thats how it was back then good and bad both sides of what it was like under sam now if you find that hard to grasp stick to posting utter garbage where you quote people then say nothing about the quote in your reply.If thats the best you have to offer in a topic i feel for you.

Last edited by Bluebird1977 on Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

When people turn to sarcasm/snipes and taking the piss it means they know f**k all and cant put a decent debate up.




Of course Sam is the head of Langston, but he is not Langston, he is the head of a group of Lebanese business men, who Sam got together to lend the Club £24 mill, not Sams money, they want it back. I continue to watch everyone turn to snipes/jokes like they are because they dont know the truth/facts.

Annis, thats contrary to what Gwyn said earlier though.

How is he a crook Jinx, he is one of the few people who actually lost his own money at our club rather than make a fortune from it, crooks steal things, what has he stolen, and unless I'm wrong we still owe him 24 million pounds ALA the Langstone debt, can you imagine any other people being prepared to wait this long for their money?

Craig,
The original £3.5 mill that Sam put in in the year 2000 was Sam's personal money, which he agrees was quite happy to lose.nothing to do with the £24 mill.
I am staying out of this debate, only got involved for one second because Bluebird 1977 asked me. But I leave you all to it and try your best at Sam bashing.


I have always been honest about Sam and yes I support him, but when he does wrong I say it as it is. Read " Shattered Dreams " or " My Story ". The Truth/warts and all.

Annis,
I don't think we'll ever agree on the Sam thing until the whole truth comes out for everybody to see, if he has been totally stiched up and innocent i'd happily apologise to him in person. I was staying out of it until Gwyn (a staunch Sam supporter, like yourself) said that Sam was langston and we owe Sam £24m. Even you'd agree thats contrary to what you have been saying for years on here.

I have read Shattered dreams, remember, i was taking it on holiday but couldnt put it down. If anything the one line in that book scared the shit out of me

"if the fans ever turn on me, ill f**k them" Sam said to you in his car.

The majority of fans have turned on him....is he "f*cking" us now??

Annis,
I don't think we'll ever agree on the Sam thing until the whole truth comes out for everybody to see, if he has been totally stiched up and innocent i'd happily apologise to him in person. I was staying out of it until Gwyn (a staunch Sam supporter, like yourself) said that Sam was langston and we owe Sam £24m. Even you'd agree thats contrary to what you have been saying for years on here.

Craig,
Honestly,Sam is the Head of Langston, which consists of a number of Lebanese Business men, who all put money in.
Yes Gwyn is a staunch Sam fan, like myself and we probably argue way beyond, but when you see lies by certain people in high places incl the Riddler, who wanted to destroy him then you defend him. Yes he made mistakes, many and he admits that.

Craig,
The original £3.5 mill that Sam put in in the year 2000 was Sam's personal money, which he agrees was quite happy to lose.nothing to do with the £24 mill.
I am staying out of this debate, only got involved for one second because Bluebird 1977 asked me. But I leave you all to it and try your best at Sam bashing.

I feel you should say how it is annis. We can all have are say i feel we had good times and bad times under sam but thats what i think and ive posted them are current owners are no diffrent they will leave one day and we will have an opinion on them also, we are all diffrent.Annis i asked you to post what you think for many reasons first of all you know him better than most and of course would not discuss certain money figures or certain things he wants to keep private, secondly i know its hard to see anything said bad towards someone your close to like in this thread which can be a pain in the arse and last but not least i feel you should defend him on your own board with facts that maybe others did not know or how else do people get the truth????? maybe one day you will write a book

One thing is for sure though we had good times going up the leagues with sam even if it come with massive debt owed but going to grounds on a wet tuesday night with dry rott seats in where the terrace stank of piss with one portable toilet between 1000-1200 of us in they away end while it pissed down on us for 90mins they was the days we sang out loud in are droves and i can not remember one person who would moan we was singing or would give u a silly look because your getting behind the team unlike todays new fans, he then handed us over to the sharks mr riddler and co(land leaches) when we was 4points clear at the top of the championship ,the malaysians will be no diffrent once they turn us over to someone else they will want there super inflated loans back im sure thats how it goes though in football, he made mistakes but who dont in life.Now we are paying for it in the long run but where would we be without him who knows and i wouldnt like to think, What i will say is this they need to sort it out whats owned to him/langstone because sooner or later there has to be an end point or we could end up back in court. i would love it sorted so we can move on as the past is the past and should stay there

I'm sorry bluebird1977 but is that English? You mention in your joke photo about what is it Sam is trying to say, then you write something totally unreadable. Then this block of letters above appear. Now I'm not saying you have to be a master writer to post but, you know, but how hard can it be to press the "." button now and again?

I don't know about you worrying about the rights and wrongs in football, I think you should seriously consider suing your old English teacher. You were robbed.

It's a football forum....the standud of ingerlish is rubish.....gerrovarit

Well berwyn you old fart im sorry i did not go to a posh private school like yourself back in the 1950's or was it 40s for you??, i and most others understand what i posted thats how it was back then good and bad both sides of what it was like under sam now if you find that hard to grasp stick to posting utter garbage where you quote people then say nothing about the quote in your reply.If thats the best you have to offer in a topic i feel for you.

Well I'm not an old fart nor did I go to private school. Nor am I an expert at English. I'm 45 and went to a regular comprehensive. I do though know where the "." button is on my keyboard and I am able to string a few words together without them merging in to one long mash. I don't think you need to have gone to a private school to be able to do that. Sorry about the rest of your post, I just can't read it. Maybe you can get some old fart to help you rewrite it.

The club seem to hold all the cards, certainly until we are promoted anyway. The club doesnt have 24m to give Langston so they cant have it, simple as that.

If Langston thought they could get it through the courts they would have by now.

Craig,
The original £3.5 mill that Sam put in in the year 2000 was Sam's personal money, which he agrees was quite happy to lose.nothing to do with the £24 mill.
I am staying out of this debate, only got involved for one second because Bluebird 1977 asked me. But I leave you all to it and try your best at Sam bashing.

I feel you should say how it is annis. We can all have are say i feel we had good times and bad times under sam but thats what i think and ive posted them are current owners are no diffrent they will leave one day and we will have an opinion on them also, we are all diffrent.Annis i asked you to post what you think for many reasons first of all you know him better than most and of course would not discuss certain money figures or certain things he wants to keep private, secondly i know its hard to see anything said bad towards someone your close to like in this thread which can be a pain in the arse and last but not least i feel you should defend him on your own board with facts that maybe others did not know or how else do people get the truth????? maybe one day you will write a book

I have battled this debate till I am blue in the face like I did DJ, which I was proved right in the end and all those people have now disappeared, except for Polo.

The club seem to hold all the cards, certainly until we are promoted anyway. The club doesnt have 24m to give Langston so they cant have it, simple as that.

If Langston thought they could get it through the courts they would have by now.

Luke,
Its £36 mill now thanks to the Riddler and no payments have been paid for over a year. I will leave it at that for now.

Craig,
The original £3.5 mill that Sam put in in the year 2000 was Sam's personal money, which he agrees was quite happy to lose.nothing to do with the £24 mill.
I am staying out of this debate, only got involved for one second because Bluebird 1977 asked me. But I leave you all to it and try your best at Sam bashing.

I feel you should say how it is annis. We can all have are say i feel we had good times and bad times under sam but thats what i think and ive posted them are current owners are no diffrent they will leave one day and we will have an opinion on them also, we are all diffrent.Annis i asked you to post what you think for many reasons first of all you know him better than most and of course would not discuss certain money figures or certain things he wants to keep private, secondly i know its hard to see anything said bad towards someone your close to like in this thread which can be a pain in the arse and last but not least i feel you should defend him on your own board with facts that maybe others did not know or how else do people get the truth????? maybe one day you will write a book

I have battled this debate till I am blue in the face like I did DJ, which I was proved right in the end and all those people have now disappeared, except for Polo.

Thats just what i think, after all your closer to him than anyone on here im guessing, so thats why i asked,as for polo hes like a bad dose of the clap that just keeps comming back

Last edited by Bluebird1977 on Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Craig,
The original £3.5 mill that Sam put in in the year 2000 was Sam's personal money, which he agrees was quite happy to lose.nothing to do with the £24 mill.
I am staying out of this debate, only got involved for one second because Bluebird 1977 asked me. But I leave you all to it and try your best at Sam bashing.

I feel you should say how it is annis. We can all have are say i feel we had good times and bad times under sam but thats what i think and ive posted them are current owners are no diffrent they will leave one day and we will have an opinion on them also, we are all diffrent.Annis i asked you to post what you think for many reasons first of all you know him better than most and of course would not discuss certain money figures or certain things he wants to keep private, secondly i know its hard to see anything said bad towards someone your close to like in this thread which can be a pain in the arse and last but not least i feel you should defend him on your own board with facts that maybe others did not know or how else do people get the truth????? maybe one day you will write a book

Anyone know of a Google app or something that will help translate that post?