OUR CEO

Ah the old "just fishing" chestnut eh?

Im willing to chat to you for as long as you would like, these threads stay open forever, we can always pop back and forth. Some stimulating debate would be good rather than what you are serving up currently however.

Fishing? I would say more of a statement of fact. But hey, it's your time right?

I lost interest in the "debate" when you failed to explain your interesting theory about how/why an unsecured creditor (Hammam, in case you are struggling to keep up) would liquidate a debtor (us) when he is bottom of an expanding pile of chargeholders.

I apologise in advance if that summation of your failure is too complex for you to grasp.

Ah the old "just fishing" chestnut eh?

Im willing to chat to you for as long as you would like, these threads stay open forever, we can always pop back and forth. Some stimulating debate would be good rather than what you are serving up currently however.

Fishing? I would say more of a statement of fact. But hey, it's your time right?

I lost interest in the "debate" when you failed to explain your interesting theory about how/why an unsecured creditor (Hammam, in case you are struggling to keep up) would liquidate a debtor (us) when he is bottom of an expanding pile of chargeholders.

I apologise in advance if that summation of your failure is too complex for you to grasp.

Yes fishing. The thing when you lose a debate and just waffle, a bit like what you are doing here. As you are well aware, the case against you is two fold yet you are trying to combine them, it doesnt wash as a defence im afraid.

You were in court facing many winding up orders. You know what they are right? You fail to pay them, then you are in liquidation or in administration. You couldnt afford to pay them so took a loan you couldnt afford to pay back to cover them. If Tan didnt agree to this you would be in administration with a points deduction. Unless you have some pearls of wisdom from the bleak financial figures released at the time?

Hammam, or Langston - more specifically. I am understood that you owed £32 million payable by 2016, these loan notes were valid and lawful. You couldnt afford to pay it back and have no hope of clearing the £100m+ debt you have accrued by borrowing what you knew you couldnt afford to pay back in order to make the sufficient profit to do so. Sam would have taken you to court and you would have been liquidated. Stadium, players, land and real estate sold off to pay back the creditors. Yes Sam was near the bottom of the list but it is a list that would have been swallowed up quite quickly with the firesale and he would certainly get some of his money back.

However due to the club still not making anywhere near a profit and living beyond its means in the face of all the winding up orders and advice, it needed Tan again to settle with Sam for less than he was owed or face a much smaller amount upon liquidation in 2016. Very noble im sure you will agree.