Where does it state the Langston confession ?

Theres no way the f*cking lawyer would come out with an outright lie like this ffs!!!

Exactly sams few followers are delusional

Lawyers are trained to lie.

Utter nonsene. They may be trained to embelish and stretch certain aspects of a case but not an outright lie like you are claiming this is.


My guess is you would rather cling on to this than admit you duped by sam the scam.

Theres no way the f*cking lawyer would come out with an outright lie like this ffs!!!

Exactly sams few followers are delusional

Lawyers are trained to lie.

Utter nonsene. They may be trained to embelish and stretch certain aspects of a case but not an outright lie like you are claiming this is.


My guess is you would rather cling on to this than admit you duped by sam the scam.

SB stated.

'We did not pay his (SAMs ) costs and actually got a discount on the payment.

Also Steve you might want to consider the debt was paid up until late 2014, not 2013.

Whether Noades was involved or not, who knows, but the statements today appear to nail Sam.

If they definitely aren't true then I'm sure he won't be quiet for long and we'll soon end up back in court.

It's like Groundhog Day

It doesn't cost a lot to put a case in court, especially if nailed on. It's a simple an inexpensive application.

The discount wasn't exactly a big one at all.
Can't see where Sam was nailed, he got what he went to court for.
Cardiff City got nailed renegading on a previous agreement.

SB stated.

'We did not pay his (SAMs ) costs and actually got a discount on the payment.

Also Steve you might want to consider the debt was paid up until late 2014, not 2013.

Whether Noades was involved or not, who knows, but the statements today appear to nail Sam.

If they definitely aren't true then I'm sure he won't be quiet for long and we'll soon end up back in court.

It's like Groundhog Day

It doesn't cost a lot to put a case in court, especially if nailed on. It's a simple an inexpensive application.

The discount wasn't exactly a big one at all.
Can't see where Sam was nailed, he got what he went to court for.
Cardiff City got nailed renegading on a previous agreement.

Do you think city's cost were 3 million as people were say on here ,I can't see that

Theres no way the f*cking lawyer would come out with an outright lie like this ffs!!!

Exactly sams few followers are delusional

Lawyers are trained to lie.

Utter nonsene. They may be trained to embelish and stretch certain aspects of a case but not an outright lie like you are claiming this is.


My guess is you would rather cling on to this than admit you duped by sam the scam.

Oh ffs stretch

Me duped are you f*cking stupid ? I was telling you when he was duping you !

SB stated.

'We did not pay his (SAMs ) costs and actually got a discount on the payment.

Also Steve you might want to consider the debt was paid up until late 2014, not 2013.

Whether Noades was involved or not, who knows, but the statements today appear to nail Sam.

If they definitely aren't true then I'm sure he won't be quiet for long and we'll soon end up back in court.

It's like Groundhog Day

It doesn't cost a lot to put a case in court, especially if nailed on. It's a simple an inexpensive application.

The discount wasn't exactly a big one at all.
Can't see where Sam was nailed, he got what he went to court for.
Cardiff City got nailed renegading on a previous agreement.

Do you think city's cost were 3 million as people were say on here ,I can't see that

Well according to notty banks of legal teams worked through the nights and midnight oils while eating expensive pizza !
Of course this man never talks shite !

Seems to me Tucker has been told spin from within to sway people's opinions. I don't see anywhere where it states he is Langston either

The solicitor representing cardiff city has stated that hammam has admitted it, is that not enough proof???

No. Paper talk , also said he was chomping pizza !! As well as saying he was acting unprofessional

Seems to me Tucker has been told spin from within to sway people's opinions. I don't see anywhere where it states he is Langston either

The solicitor representing cardiff city has stated that hammam has admitted it, is that not enough proof???

Its not paper talk its a direct quote you fool.

Ill expecting a few people to be sued very soon otherwise

No. Paper talk , also said he was chomping pizza !! As well as saying he was acting unprofessional

Steve (Daya)

Chris Nott (with some humour) admitted to being slightly unprofessional in as much as he is an admitted Cardiff City FC supporter and had a personal interest in seeing things through!

Do you really think that when not came to the professional/legal nitty gritty he wouldn't have done his job professionally?

I have no big issue with you, you know that, but I'm not sure what you are up to tonight?

Sam took Tan to Court, both sides met and thrashed an 'out of Court' agreement that likely had confidentiality clauses within it and a deal was struck with the club agreeing to pay all the money back in two phases (if you include the Premier League clause) and Sam admitting he was (shock, horror!) the man behind the mysterious Langston

That's it, fella! The case appears closed and I am sure some of the finer detail will never be revealed as both sides begin to move on and the followers of Cardiff City FC must be allowed to do the same too!

I think it went like this Sam "I want my money " club "only if you say who Langston are " Sam " OK its bloody me I'm sick of being mugged off " club " you can have 5 million and 2 million if we ever go up " Sam " no problem I hated you sheep shaggers any way I'm off to ruin another club abroad

I don't think Sam ever intended to 'mug the club off', wez, but I do believe he was consumed by self-interest and self-publicity

I'll freely admit I went along for the great Sam Hammam Ride and enjoyed the vast majority of it!

They were, being honest, amongst the best days in my many years of following our club and it will be hard to replicate it in the future (in fun and excitement terms) under any other owner. It was one hell of a journey!

What is undoubtedly true though, is that Sam (through whatever means) lost control in the end and the Langston Notes were the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. The Council wouldn't deal with him (on the stadium) and the banks and HMRC started to get impatient, hence the arrival of The Riddler to 'sort things out' for him

Ironically, it was The Riddler's arrival that signalled the end for Sam (he was told he was no longer an asset to the club but rather a millstone) and off he went minus the £27m Langston had loaned the club...and they wanted it back!

The rest, as they say, is history and personally I am glad it appears to be over at long last!

I hold no great grudge against Sam. He came, he conquered (for a while) and he departed like all those before him and as all those after him, including Vincent Tan, will do similar and all we can currently hope for is that the current temporary custodian (Vincent Tan) leaves the place in a healthier state than when he arrived...and I don't think that will be too hard a task to achieve in real terms!

Took 7hrs for things to get back to normal regarding Langston/sam guess subject will never die now?

It's there in black and white, this is what the club solicitor has stated :-

“Who was behind a Panama-based company, with nominal directors and a base in Switzerland? The key to moving things on was finally getting Mr Hammam to admit in litigation that he was in fact Langston. That was the major factor from the club’s perspective anyway."

I'm not sure why Daya and Carl are saying it hasn't been confirmed. The solicitor has said quite plainly there that Sam admitted it ,quite probably through his legal team, that he was Langston and that is why the club agreed to settle.

Theres no way the f*cking lawyer would come out with an outright lie like this ffs!!!

Paul, you are correct

It would surely ruin his career, so IMHO he would not have said it if it wasn't true

Sven .... He's even quoted as saying he's not been professional. Read the tucker article.

He's a solicitor ... For his client, they say what they wish.

Sven ask yourself this, if me and you settled out of court a disagreement would we do it privately and in confidence or allow our lawyers to talk to the press ? Course we f*cking wouldn't .

Bottom line is Sam Hammam took it court and won with an out of court settlement because Cardiff City didn't have a leg to stand on.

Why not ask the board you praise to provide the evidence , clearly there's no confidentiality agreement so do the simple thing and ask your slime ball chairman for the evidence !!!

Go on..... ASK ..... You won't see evidence as there isn't any !!

Steve, with respect you have a blatant agenda and it does you a disservice. If you genuinely believe lawyers are (quote) "trained to lie" (as opposed to re-shaping the truth in favour of their clients) in a public statement, then you are clearly not aware of the litigation that might occur from such a public and bare-faced lie!

As I know you are a lot cleverer than that, I can only assume you know that Chris Nott wouldn't have made that statement if it was not wholly true!

The evidence is in the statement itself and does not have to be proven "in writing" or "in person by Sam" for it to be true and Tan's side (via Capital Law) would be treading on exceptionally thin ice if they were to make such a blatantly untrue statement, hence leaving themselves open for further Court action

I don't know (the same as most others, I would guess) what went on behind the closed doors of the legal teams meetings, but it is clear that through negotiation (no matter whether Tan admitted liability, which wasn't really in doubt, or Sam admitted he was Langston) a settlement was agreed and any statements that came out of that would have been 'on the record' and reflective of what was agreed within the signed agreements

To think/suggest otherwise is simply mischievous

Steve (Daya)

Chris Nott (with some humour) admitted to being slightly unprofessional in as much as he is an admitted Cardiff City FC supporter and had a personal interest in seeing things through!

Do you really think that when not came to the professional/legal nitty gritty he wouldn't have done his job professionally?

I have no big issue with you, you know that, but I'm not sure what you are up to tonight?

Sam took Tan to Court, both sides met and thrashed an 'out of Court' agreement that likely had confidentiality clauses within it and a deal was struck with the club agreeing to pay all the money back in two phases (if you include the Premier League clause) and Sam admitting he was (shock, horror!) the man behind the mysterious Langston

That's it, fella! The case appears closed and I am sure some of the finer detail will never be revealed as both sides begin to move on and the followers of Cardiff City FC must be allowed to do the same too!

I think it went like this Sam "I want my money " club "only if you say who Langston are " Sam " OK its bloody me I'm sick of being mugged off " club " you can have 5 million and 2 million if we ever go up " Sam " no problem I hated you sheep shaggers any way I'm off to ruin another club abroad

I don't think Sam ever intended to 'mug the club off', wez, but I do believe he was consumed by self-interest and self-publicity

I'll freely admit I went along for the great Sam Hammam Ride and enjoyed the vast majority of it!

They were, being honest, amongst the best days in my many years of following our club and it will be hard to replicate it in the future (in fun and excitement terms) under any other owner. It was one hell of a journey!

What is undoubtedly true though, is that Sam (through whatever means) lost control in the end and the Langston Notes were the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. The Council wouldn't deal with him (on the stadium) and the banks and HMRC started to get impatient, hence the arrival of The Riddler to 'sort things out' for him

Ironically, it was The Riddler's arrival that signalled the end for Sam (he was told he was no longer an asset to the club but rather a millstone) and off he went minus the £27m Langston had loaned the club...and they wanted it back!

The rest, as they say, is history and personally I am glad it appears to be over at long last!

I hold no great grudge against Sam. He came, he conquered (for a while) and he departed like all those before him and as all those after him, including Vincent Tan, will do similar and all we can currently hope for is that the current temporary custodian (Vincent Tan) leaves the place in a healthier state than when he arrived...and I don't think that will be too hard a task to achieve in real terms!

Best an honest opinion in all this chaos

It's time for divisions to be healed and all to move in the same direction, Christ we have enough problems going into Engerland every time we play to be fighting one another

Steve (Daya)

Chris Nott (with some humour) admitted to being slightly unprofessional in as much as he is an admitted Cardiff City FC supporter and had a personal interest in seeing things through!

Do you really think that when not came to the professional/legal nitty gritty he wouldn't have done his job professionally?

I have no big issue with you, you know that, but I'm not sure what you are up to tonight?

Sam took Tan to Court, both sides met and thrashed an 'out of Court' agreement that likely had confidentiality clauses within it and a deal was struck with the club agreeing to pay all the money back in two phases (if you include the Premier League clause) and Sam admitting he was (shock, horror!) the man behind the mysterious Langston

That's it, fella! The case appears closed and I am sure some of the finer detail will never be revealed as both sides begin to move on and the followers of Cardiff City FC must be allowed to do the same too!

I think it went like this Sam "I want my money " club "only if you say who Langston are " Sam " OK its bloody me I'm sick of being mugged off " club " you can have 5 million and 2 million if we ever go up " Sam " no problem I hated you sheep shaggers any way I'm off to ruin another club abroad

I don't think Sam ever intended to 'mug the club off', wez, but I do believe he was consumed by self-interest and self-publicity

I'll freely admit I went along for the great Sam Hammam Ride and enjoyed the vast majority of it!

They were, being honest, amongst the best days in my many years of following our club and it will be hard to replicate it in the future (in fun and excitement terms) under any other owner. It was one hell of a journey!

What is undoubtedly true though, is that Sam (through whatever means) lost control in the end and the Langston Notes were the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. The Council wouldn't deal with him (on the stadium) and the banks and HMRC started to get impatient, hence the arrival of The Riddler to 'sort things out' for him

Ironically, it was The Riddler's arrival that signalled the end for Sam (he was told he was no longer an asset to the club but rather a millstone) and off he went minus the £27m Langston had loaned the club...and they wanted it back!

The rest, as they say, is history and personally I am glad it appears to be over at long last!

I hold no great grudge against Sam. He came, he conquered (for a while) and he departed like all those before him and as all those after him, including Vincent Tan, will do similar and all we can currently hope for is that the current temporary custodian (Vincent Tan) leaves the place in a healthier state than when he arrived...and I don't think that will be too hard a task to achieve in real terms!

Best an honest opinion in all this chaos

It's time for divisions to be healed and all to move in the same direction, Christ we have enough problems going into Engerland every time we play to be fighting one another

Indeed

Whether Sam is Langston or not he has done well (for himself) to have finally got 'his' £24m back. When you think back to 2006 and the way Ridsdale and PMG mugged him it really looked like he would never see his cash again.

It took 10 long years but somehow he got it back. Many might think that is unfortunate but personally I admire him for being dogged. After all everyone one of us would have done the same had it been our cash.

Took 7hrs for things to get back to normal regarding Langston/sam guess subject will never die now?

It's there in black and white, this is what the club solicitor has stated :-

“Who was behind a Panama-based company, with nominal directors and a base in Switzerland? The key to moving things on was finally getting Mr Hammam to admit in litigation that he was in fact Langston. That was the major factor from the club’s perspective anyway."

I'm not sure why Daya and Carl are saying it hasn't been confirmed. The solicitor has said quite plainly there that Sam admitted it ,quite probably through his legal team, that he was Langston and that is why the club agreed to settle.

A solicitor is just that a solicitor, they can like anyone else say what they want.

Whether Sam is Langston or not he has done well (for himself) to have finally got 'his' £24m back. When you think back to 2006 and the way Ridsdale and PMG mugged him it really looked like he would never see his cash again.

It took 10 long years but somehow he got it back. Many might think that is unfortunate but personally I admire him for being dogged. After all everyone one of us would have done the same had it been our cash.

His mismanagement ran the debt up it was us the fans who have suffered for to this

Whether Sam is Langston or not he has done well (for himself) to have finally got 'his' £24m back. When you think back to 2006 and the way Ridsdale and PMG mugged him it really looked like he would never see his cash again.

It took 10 long years but somehow he got it back. Many might think that is unfortunate but personally I admire him for being dogged. After all everyone one of us would have done the same had it been our cash.

His mismanagement ran the debt up it was us the fans who have suffered for to this

Correct Sam's mismanagement did run up the debt that is not in dispute. My point was he got his money back against the odds, not that he deserved it.

That said I would state that ultimately Vincent Tan is the one to suffer (not us fans) as he seems to have personally repaid 95% of the debt.

Theres no way the f*cking lawyer would come out with an outright lie like this ffs!!!

Paul, you are correct

It would surely ruin his career, so IMHO he would not have said it if it wasn't true

Sven .... He's even quoted as saying he's not been professional. Read the tucker article.

He's a solicitor ... For his client, they say what they wish.

Sven ask yourself this, if me and you settled out of court a disagreement would we do it privately and in confidence or allow our lawyers to talk to the press ? Course we f*cking wouldn't .

Bottom line is Sam Hammam took it court and won with an out of court settlement because Cardiff City didn't have a leg to stand on.

Why not ask the board you praise to provide the evidence , clearly there's no confidentiality agreement so do the simple thing and ask your slime ball chairman for the evidence !!!

Go on..... ASK ..... You won't see evidence as there isn't any !!

Steve, with respect you have a blatant agenda and it does you a disservice. If you genuinely believe lawyers are (quote) "trained to lie" (as opposed to re-shaping the truth in favour of their clients) in a public statement, then you are clearly not aware of the litigation that might occur from such a public and bare-faced lie!

As I know you are a lot cleverer than that, I can only assume you know that Chris Nott wouldn't have made that statement if it was not wholly true!

The evidence is in the statement itself and does not have to be proven "in writing" or "in person by Sam" for it to be true and Tan's side (via Capital Law) would be treading on exceptionally thin ice if they were to make such a blatantly untrue statement, hence leaving themselves open for further Court action

I don't know (the same as most others, I would guess) what went on behind the closed doors of the legal teams meetings, but it is clear that through negotiation (no matter whether Tan admitted liability, which wasn't really in doubt, or Sam admitted he was Langston) a settlement was agreed and any statements that came out of that would have been 'on the record' and reflective of what was agreed within the signed agreements

To think/suggest otherwise is simply mischievous

Sven,

You start off by stating I have an agenda , that's as poor as Nott saying Sam is Langston in the paper without providing evidence.
Now what agenda would I have?
I no longer watch it have any association with Cardiff City football club, apart from keeping in contact with friends picked up along the way.
I enjoyed Cardiff City before either Hammam or Tan , when it had an honest decent chairman, I thereafter fell out with Hammam and his inner circle over the obvious poor financial management ( hence a 24 million debt being repaid ) caught Ridsale out on numerous occasions with his pants down and finally totally walked away when Sussed out what Tan was up to when still blue.
So not sure where you claim an agenda out of that lot.
The fact though remains people are spouting all this Hammam is Langston stuff without backing it up, where does the evidence lie that proves this? None has been provided.
Tan and Cardiff City are in my opinion trying to save face, the actual facts are they owed money to Langston after breaking an agreement, Langston took them to court ( to which they would have won an obvious clear cut case ) and Tan/ Cardiff City choked the case and settled out of court agreeing to pay the outstanding in 30 days, of which what the court would have ordered anyway.
The problem is Sven, as so many times in the past,

Your football club constantly lies to you. It's a ruined club, it's not the good old Cardiff City , it's a Malaysian franchise club.

Theres no way the f*cking lawyer would come out with an outright lie like this ffs!!!

Paul, you are correct

It would surely ruin his career, so IMHO he would not have said it if it wasn't true

Sven .... He's even quoted as saying he's not been professional. Read the tucker article.

He's a solicitor ... For his client, they say what they wish.

Sven ask yourself this, if me and you settled out of court a disagreement would we do it privately and in confidence or allow our lawyers to talk to the press ? Course we f*cking wouldn't .

Bottom line is Sam Hammam took it court and won with an out of court settlement because Cardiff City didn't have a leg to stand on.

Why not ask the board you praise to provide the evidence , clearly there's no confidentiality agreement so do the simple thing and ask your slime ball chairman for the evidence !!!

Go on..... ASK ..... You won't see evidence as there isn't any !!

Steve, with respect you have a blatant agenda and it does you a disservice. If you genuinely believe lawyers are (quote) "trained to lie" (as opposed to re-shaping the truth in favour of their clients) in a public statement, then you are clearly not aware of the litigation that might occur from such a public and bare-faced lie!

As I know you are a lot cleverer than that, I can only assume you know that Chris Nott wouldn't have made that statement if it was not wholly true!

The evidence is in the statement itself and does not have to be proven "in writing" or "in person by Sam" for it to be true and Tan's side (via Capital Law) would be treading on exceptionally thin ice if they were to make such a blatantly untrue statement, hence leaving themselves open for further Court action

I don't know (the same as most others, I would guess) what went on behind the closed doors of the legal teams meetings, but it is clear that through negotiation (no matter whether Tan admitted liability, which wasn't really in doubt, or Sam admitted he was Langston) a settlement was agreed and any statements that came out of that would have been 'on the record' and reflective of what was agreed within the signed agreements

To think/suggest otherwise is simply mischievous

Sven,

You start off by stating I have an agenda , that's as poor as Nott saying Sam is Langston in the paper without providing evidence.
Now what agenda would I have?
I no longer watch it have any association with Cardiff City football club, apart from keeping in contact with friends picked up along the way.
I enjoyed Cardiff City before either Hammam or Tan , when it had an honest decent chairman, I thereafter fell out with Hammam and his inner circle over the obvious poor financial management ( hence a 24 million debt being repaid ) caught Ridsale out on numerous occasions with his pants down and finally totally walked away when Sussed out what Tan was up to when still blue.
So not sure where you claim an agenda out of that lot.
The fact though remains people are spouting all this Hammam is Langston stuff without backing it up, where does the evidence lie that proves this? None has been provided.
Tan and Cardiff City are in my opinion trying to save face, the actual facts are they owed money to Langston after breaking an agreement, Langston took them to court ( to which they would have won an obvious clear cut case ) and Tan/ Cardiff City choked the case and settled out of court agreeing to pay the outstanding in 30 days, of which what the court would have ordered anyway.
The problem is Sven, as so many times in the past,

Your football club constantly lies to you. It's a ruined club, it's not the good old Cardiff City , it's a Malaysian franchise club.

Another note Sven - if you asked me to say I was behind a sheep with my willy out so I got back 5 million from you in return, I would say exactly that !
Ron Noades was always the head of Langston along with another who's name I wouldn't ever put on here.
Sam Hammam was always the well paid front man at both Wimbledon and Cardiff City.
Sam Hammam even had shares in Tottenham as he fronted another attempt by another person to buy the club !

Theres no way the f*cking lawyer would come out with an outright lie like this ffs!!!

Paul, you are correct

It would surely ruin his career, so IMHO he would not have said it if it wasn't true

Sven .... He's even quoted as saying he's not been professional. Read the tucker article.

He's a solicitor ... For his client, they say what they wish.

Sven ask yourself this, if me and you settled out of court a disagreement would we do it privately and in confidence or allow our lawyers to talk to the press ? Course we f*cking wouldn't .

Bottom line is Sam Hammam took it court and won with an out of court settlement because Cardiff City didn't have a leg to stand on.

Why not ask the board you praise to provide the evidence , clearly there's no confidentiality agreement so do the simple thing and ask your slime ball chairman for the evidence !!!

Go on..... ASK ..... You won't see evidence as there isn't any !!

Steve, with respect you have a blatant agenda and it does you a disservice. If you genuinely believe lawyers are (quote) "trained to lie" (as opposed to re-shaping the truth in favour of their clients) in a public statement, then you are clearly not aware of the litigation that might occur from such a public and bare-faced lie!

As I know you are a lot cleverer than that, I can only assume you know that Chris Nott wouldn't have made that statement if it was not wholly true!

The evidence is in the statement itself and does not have to be proven "in writing" or "in person by Sam" for it to be true and Tan's side (via Capital Law) would be treading on exceptionally thin ice if they were to make such a blatantly untrue statement, hence leaving themselves open for further Court action

I don't know (the same as most others, I would guess) what went on behind the closed doors of the legal teams meetings, but it is clear that through negotiation (no matter whether Tan admitted liability, which wasn't really in doubt, or Sam admitted he was Langston) a settlement was agreed and any statements that came out of that would have been 'on the record' and reflective of what was agreed within the signed agreements

To think/suggest otherwise is simply mischievous

Sven,

You start off by stating I have an agenda , that's as poor as Nott saying Sam is Langston in the paper without providing evidence.
Now what agenda would I have?
I no longer watch it have any association with Cardiff City football club, apart from keeping in contact with friends picked up along the way.
I enjoyed Cardiff City before either Hammam or Tan , when it had an honest decent chairman, I thereafter fell out with Hammam and his inner circle over the obvious poor financial management ( hence a 24 million debt being repaid ) caught Ridsale out on numerous occasions with his pants down and finally totally walked away when Sussed out what Tan was up to when still blue.
So not sure where you claim an agenda out of that lot.
The fact though remains people are spouting all this Hammam is Langston stuff without backing it up, where does the evidence lie that proves this? None has been provided.
Tan and Cardiff City are in my opinion trying to save face, the actual facts are they owed money to Langston after breaking an agreement, Langston took them to court ( to which they would have won an obvious clear cut case ) and Tan/ Cardiff City choked the case and settled out of court agreeing to pay the outstanding in 30 days, of which what the court would have ordered anyway.
The problem is Sven, as so many times in the past,

Your football club constantly lies to you. It's a ruined club, it's not the good old Cardiff City , it's a Malaysian franchise club.

im glad they wheel you out every once in a while, its entertaining

Theres no way the f*cking lawyer would come out with an outright lie like this ffs!!!

Paul, you are correct

It would surely ruin his career, so IMHO he would not have said it if it wasn't true

Sven .... He's even quoted as saying he's not been professional. Read the tucker article.

He's a solicitor ... For his client, they say what they wish.

Sven ask yourself this, if me and you settled out of court a disagreement would we do it privately and in confidence or allow our lawyers to talk to the press ? Course we f*cking wouldn't .

Bottom line is Sam Hammam took it court and won with an out of court settlement because Cardiff City didn't have a leg to stand on.

Why not ask the board you praise to provide the evidence , clearly there's no confidentiality agreement so do the simple thing and ask your slime ball chairman for the evidence !!!

Go on..... ASK ..... You won't see evidence as there isn't any !!

Steve, with respect you have a blatant agenda and it does you a disservice. If you genuinely believe lawyers are (quote) "trained to lie" (as opposed to re-shaping the truth in favour of their clients) in a public statement, then you are clearly not aware of the litigation that might occur from such a public and bare-faced lie!

As I know you are a lot cleverer than that, I can only assume you know that Chris Nott wouldn't have made that statement if it was not wholly true!

The evidence is in the statement itself and does not have to be proven "in writing" or "in person by Sam" for it to be true and Tan's side (via Capital Law) would be treading on exceptionally thin ice if they were to make such a blatantly untrue statement, hence leaving themselves open for further Court action

I don't know (the same as most others, I would guess) what went on behind the closed doors of the legal teams meetings, but it is clear that through negotiation (no matter whether Tan admitted liability, which wasn't really in doubt, or Sam admitted he was Langston) a settlement was agreed and any statements that came out of that would have been 'on the record' and reflective of what was agreed within the signed agreements

To think/suggest otherwise is simply mischievous

Sven,

You start off by stating I have an agenda , that's as poor as Nott saying Sam is Langston in the paper without providing evidence.
Now what agenda would I have?
I no longer watch it have any association with Cardiff City football club, apart from keeping in contact with friends picked up along the way.
I enjoyed Cardiff City before either Hammam or Tan , when it had an honest decent chairman, I thereafter fell out with Hammam and his inner circle over the obvious poor financial management ( hence a 24 million debt being repaid ) caught Ridsale out on numerous occasions with his pants down and finally totally walked away when Sussed out what Tan was up to when still blue.
So not sure where you claim an agenda out of that lot.
The fact though remains people are spouting all this Hammam is Langston stuff without backing it up, where does the evidence lie that proves this? None has been provided.
Tan and Cardiff City are in my opinion trying to save face, the actual facts are they owed money to Langston after breaking an agreement, Langston took them to court ( to which they would have won an obvious clear cut case ) and Tan/ Cardiff City choked the case and settled out of court agreeing to pay the outstanding in 30 days, of which what the court would have ordered anyway.
The problem is Sven, as so many times in the past,

Your football club constantly lies to you. It's a ruined club, it's not the good old Cardiff City , it's a Malaysian franchise club.

im glad they wheel you out every once in a while, its entertaining

Nobody wheels me out fella, I've always stated my own opinions. Which funny enough are nearly always correct.
What's entertains is you don't have the evidence or the answers, just gossip and hearsay.
Come on Cardiff City, come on Mr Nott, put up the evidence please to your fans if you are to make such statements it's the least you can do to show the fans you don't tell lies !!

its not hearsay at all.


The lawyer stated he admitted it in litigation, thats good enough for me as if hes lying we will certainly here about it.... but he isnt

im glad they wheel you out every once in a while, its entertaining

It certainly is Paul, the number of people who bite make it that way. You have to laugh at the way he goes on about no proof that Sam is Langston but goes on to say Noades and someone else was that unfortunately he can't say who it was but offers no proof. Here's to a peaceful few months without him again till he needs to be wheeled out again.

its not hearsay at all.


The lawyer stated he admitted it in litigation, thats good enough for me as if hes lying we will certainly here about it.... but he isnt

Made a comment to the press that he stated it in litigation is actually hearsay until it's backed up with facts.

Clearly you've never been in litigation before, it's a posh word for chat without prejudice.

Langston got there money, which Tan didn't want to pay as demonstrated by his non payments for the final instalments. There's a fact !

Meanwhile slime ball Dalman and Notty Ash have put up no facts, just hearsay to the press.

:lol: im glad they wheel you out every once in a while, its entertaining

It certainly is Paul, the number of people who bite make it that way. You have to laugh at the way he goes on about no proof that Sam is Langston but goes on to say Noades and someone else was that unfortunately he can't say who it was but offers no proof. Here's to a peaceful few months without him again till he needs to be wheeled out again.

You can't dig proof into off shore well hidden companies. Not even Tan with his billions, look how many millions he spent on lawyers and investigations and still found nothing and had to pay out. What ever happened to the forensic accountants ?

As for proof though, if you are to claim that Hamman was Langston in the press and more importantly to your customers ( the supporters of the club ) then surely you should back it up and demonstrate you are a trust worthy board.

There's clearly no confidentiality agreement in the settlement so where's the problem in showing the evidence ?

Maybe you could answer that question barri boy ..... Instead of talking bollocks ?

You can't dig proof into off shore well hidden companies. Not even Tan with his billions, look how many millions he spent on lawyers and investigations and still found nothing and had to pay out. What ever happened to the forensic accountants ?

So by your own admission there ain't no proof that Noades had anything to do with Langston, so why bring it up. Personally I don't give a shit who Langston was, I have no real interest in them showing it but I'm sure if the club has put out a false statement stating that Scam was Langston then he'll be going back to court about it. As you say you no longer have any association with the club, so why keep turning up on here spouting bollocks, I'm sure you have enough to say about your beloved 'Ammers to leave us in peace and quiet.

:lol: im glad they wheel you out every once in a while, its entertaining

It certainly is Paul, the number of people who bite make it that way. You have to laugh at the way he goes on about no proof that Sam is Langston but goes on to say Noades and someone else was that unfortunately he can't say who it was but offers no proof. Here's to a peaceful few months without him again till he needs to be wheeled out again.

You can't dig proof into off shore well hidden companies. Not even Tan with his billions, look how many millions he spent on lawyers and investigations and still found nothing and had to pay out. What ever happened to the forensic accountants ?

As for proof though, if you are to claim that Hamman was Langston in the press and more importantly to your customers ( the supporters of the club ) then surely you should back it up and demonstrate you are a trust worthy board.

There's clearly no confidentiality agreement in the settlement so where's the problem in showing the evidence ?

Maybe you could answer that question barri boy ..... Instead of talking bollocks ?

If Ron Noades was Langston then presumably the £15m paid in 2013 and other payments including the instalments and the £5m due in the next 30 days will appear in the accounts of his estate?

SO ... if Sam is NOT langston .... and does not know who they are ... why does he care if we pay or not? I am not langston and dont care if they get their cash only "they" do.
Why are langston not the ones that are fighting to be paid? Surely Sam is not just some guy that feels out of principle he should help a company get money back. What about all the other companie and individuals that miss out on money they are owed in the UK and abroad?

I am inclined to believe a Solicitor who is bound by professional conduct

SO ... if Sam is NOT langston .... and does not know who they are ... why does he care if we pay or not? I am not langston and dont care if they get their cash only "they" do.
Why are langston not the ones that are fighting to be paid? Surely Sam is not just some guy that feels out of principle he should help a company get money back. What about all the other companie and individuals that miss out on money they are owed in the UK and abroad?

I am inclined to believe a Solicitor who is bound by professional conduct

Balance of probabilities is Sam is Langston. However, he has always claimed to be their representative which would answer the question you pose.

:lol: im glad they wheel you out every once in a while, its entertaining

It certainly is Paul, the number of people who bite make it that way. You have to laugh at the way he goes on about no proof that Sam is Langston but goes on to say Noades and someone else was that unfortunately he can't say who it was but offers no proof. Here's to a peaceful few months without him again till he needs to be wheeled out again.

You can't dig proof into off shore well hidden companies. Not even Tan with his billions, look how many millions he spent on lawyers and investigations and still found nothing and had to pay out. What ever happened to the forensic accountants ?

As for proof though, if you are to claim that Hamman was Langston in the press and more importantly to your customers ( the supporters of the club ) then surely you should back it up and demonstrate you are a trust worthy board.

There's clearly no confidentiality agreement in the settlement so where's the problem in showing the evidence ?

Maybe you could answer that question barri boy ..... Instead of talking bollocks ?

If Ron Noades was Langston then presumably the £15m paid in 2013 and other payments including the instalments and the £5m due in the next 30 days will appear in the accounts of his estate?

Who knows ? ..... Estates can be hidden as well owner ships of football clubs and off shore activities.