" PMG "

Sorry but I'm uncomfortable about this. PMG never came to us when the tax man came calling. Not long ago they were calling for their money, now they are buying shares in the club. Something is going on and I'm struggling to beleive it is for the benefit of the club.

Ian, if it wasn't for PMG we wouldn't have a new stadium, they were the catalists who brought in the retail tennants which were crucial for the stadium development to get under way, not forgetting the money they also pumped into the club. What PMG did is no different to what Sam did to the club.

I don't see why they are always made out to be the bad guys.

chris

my point exactly and does anyone think the malaysians would have shown an interest in us if we were still at ramshackle ninian park

mike hall did not step down because of anything to do with a legal issue with langston
mike hall stepped down during the time when pmg and steve borley were going to buy the land to pay off the tax bill.
with mike hall being a director of pmg there was an obvious conflict of linterest as if you remember the sale of the land had to be ratified by shareholders at an EGM

Mike Hall resigned from the board of Cardiff City a full 2 years before it become public that the club had a winding up order against then by HMRC for non payment of tax.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 067763.stm

Conflict of interest was very much the explantion given and I remember the term "Feduciary" responsibility of directors being mentioned on the BBC TV report at the time.

Sorry but absolutely nothing to do with the sale of land in 2010 to settle the clubs tax bill this was very much to do with the purchase of the land for the retail development which was then used to fund the building of the stadium.

My understanding is that Huxtells Langston Lawyers were very much interested in the Feduciary responsibility angle which in this case could be taken to mean ethical relationship of confidence or trust regarding the management of money or property between two or more parties,

I'm not saying there was anything wrong with the deal surrounding the sale of the land because my understanding was that the Council controlled it, valuation etc, but one thing is clear Langston mentioned the word Feduciary and Mike Hall resigns.


Hmmmm interesting.

mike hall did not step down because of anything to do with a legal issue with langston
mike hall stepped down during the time when pmg and steve borley were going to buy the land to pay off the tax bill.
with mike hall being a director of pmg there was an obvious conflict of linterest as if you remember the sale of the land had to be ratified by shareholders at an EGM

Mike Hall resigned from the board of Cardiff City a full 2 years before it become public that the club had a winding up order against then by HMRC for non payment of tax.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 067763.stm

Conflict of interest was very much the explantion given and I remember the term "Feduciary" responsibility of directors being mentioned on the BBC TV report at the time.

Sorry but absolutely nothing to do with the sale of land in 2010 to settle the clubs tax bill this was very much to do with the purchase of the land for the retail development which was then used to fund the building of the stadium.

My understanding is that Huxtells Langston Lawyers were very much interested in the Feduciary responsibility angle which in this case could be taken to mean ethical relationship of confidence or trust regarding the management of money or property between two or more parties,

I'm not saying there was anything wrong with the deal surrounding the sale of the land because my understanding was that the Council controlled it, valuation etc, but one thing is clear Langston mentioned the word Feduciary and Mike Hall resigns.


Hmmmm interesting.

Langston's case revolved entirely upon claiming a material breach of contract occurred because "they" weren't notified the heads of agreement had been signed off. Anything else was irrelevant.

Langston's case revolved entirely upon claiming a material breach of contract occurred because "they" weren't notified the heads of agreement had been signed off. Anything else was irrelevant.

The question here was did Mike Hall resign from the board around the time land was sold to fund the payments to HMRC or was it 2 years earlier during the run up to the Langston summary judgement hearing.

FACTS show he resigned 2 years earlier so I'm sorry Nerd it is very much relevent to the action taken by Langston at that time.

But with your superior knowledge of well lets face it EVERYTHING we will never agree on this but you simply cannot argue with the fact that Mike Hall resigned from the Cardiff City board in October 2007 citing conflict of interest.

The question is why?

Langston's case revolved entirely upon claiming a material breach of contract occurred because "they" weren't notified the heads of agreement had been signed off. Anything else was irrelevant.

The question here was did Mike Hall resign from the board around the time land was sold to fund the payments to HMRC or was it 2 years earlier during the run up to the Langston summary judgement hearing.

FACTS show he resigned 2 years earlier so I'm sorry Nerd it is very much relevent to the action taken by Langston at that time.

But with your superior knowledge of well lets face it EVERYTHING we will never agree on this but you simply cannot argue with the fact that Mike Hall resigned from the Cardiff City board in October 2007 citing conflict of interest.

The question is why?

If my memory serves me right he resigned as there was a chance PMG may put the club into administration and he had to avoid a conflict on interest. This was arund the time of the court case, and was a reaction to the possibility the club may lose and have to pay Sam £30m they didnt have.

http://www.cardiff.vitalfootball.co.uk/ ... sp?a=87673

http://cdnedge.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot ... 067763.stm

Langston's case revolved entirely upon claiming a material breach of contract occurred because "they" weren't notified the heads of agreement had been signed off. Anything else was irrelevant.

The question here was did Mike Hall resign from the board around the time land was sold to fund the payments to HMRC or was it 2 years earlier during the run up to the Langston summary judgement hearing.

FACTS show he resigned 2 years earlier so I'm sorry Nerd it is very much relevent to the action taken by Langston at that time.

But with your superior knowledge of well lets face it EVERYTHING we will never agree on this but you simply cannot argue with the fact that Mike Hall resigned from the Cardiff City board in October 2007 citing conflict of interest.

The question is why?

No offence, castle, but please drop the attitude. Nobody is attacking you personally...

Langston did not cite any of that as evidence within the court case for summary judgment - if it was relevant to them, then they would have.

Langston moved for a summary judgment on one single incident, citing a material breach of contract; the judge ruling any such breach, if occurred was minor. That we had the ability to provide a defence to that.

The Feduciary responsibility angle wasn't used by Langston's lawyers as a major part of their claim. Mostly I'd say, given the judge's comments as to who he believed evidence would show was behind Langston, would open a massive can of worms. After all, if Hammam was shown in open court to have ramped up the debts, taken over the debt effectively personally via a company he controlled / was heavily involved in, that would crap all over his feduciary responsibility, no?

The question here was did Mike Hall resign from the board around the time land was sold to fund the payments to HMRC or was it 2 years earlier during the run up to the Langston summary judgement hearing.

FACTS show he resigned 2 years earlier so I'm sorry Nerd it is very much relevent to the action taken by Langston at that time.

But with your superior knowledge of well lets face it EVERYTHING we will never agree on this but you simply cannot argue with the fact that Mike Hall resigned from the Cardiff City board in October 2007 citing conflict of interest.

The question is why?

If my memory serves me right he resigned as there was a chance PMG may put the club into administration and he had to avoid a conflict on interest. This was arund the time of the court case, and was a reaction to the possibility the club may lose and have to pay Sam £30m they didnt have.

That may very well be the case as that scenario would clearly create a conflict on interest which would have been contrary to the Judicature Acts which is my understanding of one of the breaches cited by Langston legal team in the initial submission to the High Court. MH resigning removed from Langston the ability to argue a breach of Feduciary responsibilities so unlike Nerd who has dismissed this as an irrelevence it's not.

But the facts remain that MH resigned from the board in October 2007 and not during the sale of land in 2010 to fund paying an outstanding tax bill.

No offence, castle, but please drop the attitude. Nobody is attacking you personally...

Langston did not cite any of that as evidence within the court case for summary judgment - if it was relevant to them, then they would have.

Langston moved for a summary judgment on one single incident, citing a material breach of contract; the judge ruling any such breach, if occurred was minor. That we had the ability to provide a defence to that.

The Feduciary responsibility angle wasn't used by Langston's lawyers as a major part of their claim. Mostly I'd say, given the judge's comments as to who he believed evidence would show was behind Langston, would open a massive can of worms. After all, if Hammam was shown in open court to have ramped up the debts, taken over the debt effectively personally via a company he controlled / was heavily involved in, that would crap all over his feduciary responsibility, no?

Offence has already been taken on my part Nerd and if you want attitude look in the mirror.


I notice you still haven't answered the question regarding when MH resigned ? I'll ask it again when was it and why ?

Langston's case revolved entirely upon claiming a material breach of contract occurred because "they" weren't notified the heads of agreement had been signed off. Anything else was irrelevant.

The question here was did Mike Hall resign from the board around the time land was sold to fund the payments to HMRC or was it 2 years earlier during the run up to the Langston summary judgement hearing.

FACTS show he resigned 2 years earlier so I'm sorry Nerd it is very much relevent to the action taken by Langston at that time.

But with your superior knowledge of well lets face it EVERYTHING we will never agree on this but you simply cannot argue with the fact that Mike Hall resigned from the Cardiff City board in October 2007 citing conflict of interest.

The question is why?

No offence, castle, but please drop the attitude. Nobody is attacking you personally...

Langston did not cite any of that as evidence within the court case for summary judgment - if it was relevant to them, then they would have.

Langston moved for a summary judgment on one single incident, citing a material breach of contract; the judge ruling any such breach, if occurred was minor. That we had the ability to provide a defence to that.

The Feduciary responsibility angle wasn't used by Langston's lawyers as a major part of their claim. Mostly I'd say, given the judge's comments as to who he believed evidence would show was behind Langston, would open a massive can of worms. After all, if Hammam was shown in open court to have ramped up the debts, taken over the debt effectively personally via a company he controlled / was heavily involved in, that would crap all over his feduciary responsibility, no?

A lot of people dont realise the councils role in all this.
They never got involved in the summary judgement but provided enough evidence to the hearing to show that they also considered langston to have full knowledge of the heads of agreement being signed.
The council have always had a covenant in place to protect the stadium so nothing would have got past them without them ratifying it

The question here was did Mike Hall resign from the board around the time land was sold to fund the payments to HMRC or was it 2 years earlier during the run up to the Langston summary judgement hearing.

FACTS show he resigned 2 years earlier so I'm sorry Nerd it is very much relevent to the action taken by Langston at that time.

But with your superior knowledge of well lets face it EVERYTHING we will never agree on this but you simply cannot argue with the fact that Mike Hall resigned from the Cardiff City board in October 2007 citing conflict of interest.

The question is why?

If my memory serves me right he resigned as there was a chance PMG may put the club into administration and he had to avoid a conflict on interest. This was arund the time of the court case, and was a reaction to the possibility the club may lose and have to pay Sam £30m they didnt have.

That may very well be the case as that scenario would clearly create a conflict on interest which would have been contrary to the Judicature Acts which is my understanding of one of the breaches cited by Langston legal team in the initial submission to the High Court. MH resigning removed from Langston the ability to argue a breach of Feduciary responsibilities so unlike Nerd who has dismissed this as an irrelevence it's not.

But the facts remain that MH resigned from the board in October 2007 and not during the sale of land in 2010 to fund paying an outstanding tax bill.

The links I provided back this up.

No offence, castle, but please drop the attitude. Nobody is attacking you personally...

Langston did not cite any of that as evidence within the court case for summary judgment - if it was relevant to them, then they would have.

Langston moved for a summary judgment on one single incident, citing a material breach of contract; the judge ruling any such breach, if occurred was minor. That we had the ability to provide a defence to that.

The Feduciary responsibility angle wasn't used by Langston's lawyers as a major part of their claim. Mostly I'd say, given the judge's comments as to who he believed evidence would show was behind Langston, would open a massive can of worms. After all, if Hammam was shown in open court to have ramped up the debts, taken over the debt effectively personally via a company he controlled / was heavily involved in, that would crap all over his feduciary responsibility, no?

Offence has already been taken on my part Nerd and if you want attitude look in the mirror.


I notice you still haven't answered the question regarding when MH resigned ? I'll ask it again when was it and why ?

Well, if you've taken offence, not has been intended. Maybe you're look for offence where there was none.

It's already been shown when Hall resigned and why. Conflict of interest should PMG go the admin route. Which, as I've explained to you, was irrelevant to the summary judgment court case, which hinged upon an alleged breach of contract.

http://www.judgmental.org.uk/judgments/ ... 0535%20(Ch).html

"Langston is a Panamanian company with corporate British Virgin Islands directors and offices in Switzerland. Notwithstanding the issues as to the extent of the background knowledge known to the parties and relevant to the construction of the 2006 Agreement, and the issue as to rectification, Langston has chosen not to identify either its ultimate beneficial owner or owners or the person or persons who ought to be regarded as its governing mind and will for the purposes of the transactions in issue. The Club's evidence discloses a real prospect that it will be established at trial that Langston's governing mind and will at all material times was that of a Mr Sam Hammam. He was until 20th October 2006 also a director of the Club and until December 2006 the majority beneficial owner of the Club through its parent company Cardiff City Holdings Limited and its majority shareholder Rudgwick Limited. The Club's evidence shows that Mr Hammam was actively involved in the management of the Club's affairs, and in particular its participation in the Project during the period prior to and including the negotiation of the 2006 Agreement."

Any comment on this particular part; and more importantly why Halls' feduciary responsibility is an issue for you, yet Hammam's feduciary responsibility to CCFC isn't?

A lot of people dont realise the councils role in all this.
They never got involved in the summary judgement but provided enough evidence to the hearing to show that they also considered langston to have full knowledge of the heads of agreement being signed.
The council have always had a covenant in place to protect the stadium so nothing would have got past them without them ratifying it

I have always said that through all of this which loan note is in play debate that you have to considered the position of Cardiff Council in this matter.

Cardiff Council only committed to the sale of the land and the use of public funds on the basis of the renegotiation of the original loan note. Under the terms of that agreement the capital sum of £15m is not repayable until September 2016 and in fact no repayment of capital can be made by the club without the permission of the Council.

On that basis you have to ask were the Council aware of the loan note which said that the debt would be repaid by 31st December 2010 at a lower level and did they agree to it, if not was it legal only a court could tell you that but I agree the Council are big players in this soap opera.

A lot of people dont realise the councils role in all this.
They never got involved in the summary judgement but provided enough evidence to the hearing to show that they also considered langston to have full knowledge of the heads of agreement being signed.
The council have always had a covenant in place to protect the stadium so nothing would have got past them without them ratifying it

I have always said that through all of this which loan note is in play debate that you have to considered the position of Cardiff Council in this matter.

Cardiff Council only committed to the sale of the land and the use of public funds on the basis of the renegotiation of the original loan note. Under the terms of that agreement the capital sum of £15m is not repayable until September 2016 and in fact no repayment of capital can be made by the club without the permission of the Council.

On that basis you have to ask were the Council aware of the loan note which said that the debt would be repaid by 31st December 2010 at a lower level and did they agree to it, if not was it legal only a court could tell you that but I agree the Council are big players in this soap opera.

Castle

with the councils heavy involvement you could also argue that any variation to that particular agreement might be deemed to be illiegal unless ratified and signed off by the council.
But then that would mean that the riddler was making agreements behind peoples backs and the fine upstanding citizen that he is of course eliminates him from any of that sort of behaviour

On that basis you have to ask were the Council aware of the loan note which said that the debt would be repaid by 31st December 2010 at a lower level and did they agree to it, if not was it legal only a court could tell you that but I agree the Council are big players in this soap opera.

I was bnot aware until recently the council had any doing of this. I get the impression they should have a say in any new loan note agreement but I am hearing that they most likely knew nothing about the December 2010 one. If this is the case whoever signed this new agreement, of which I have no doubt do exist in one form or another, could have alot of explaining to do to the council.

Well, if you've taken offence, not has been intended. Maybe you're look for offence where there was none.

It's already been shown when Hall resigned and why. Conflict of interest should PMG go the admin route. Which, as I've explained to you, was irrelevant to the summary judgment court case, which hinged upon an alleged breach of contract.

I love you really Nerd

But there you've answered the question MH resigned 2 years earlier because of a potential conflict of interest should Cardiff City lose the Langston High Court Action.

I'll answer your point about SH which is extremely valid because if as Mr Justice Briggs said that a full hearing would likely expose SH as the controlling mind of Langston it would have to bring into question his fiduciary responsibility whilst he was chairman of Cardiff City.

Having said that the original loan note with Langston included a period where no interest was due on the loans and I also believe that period extended beyond the time he left the club. So if he is in fact Langston he did not profit as Langston whilst he was Chairman of Cardiff City FC so the fiduciary responsibility aired in favour of Cardiff City and not Langston. After he left Cardiff City of course no conflict exists because he owes no responsibility to Cardiff City FC.

But he should of declared his interest in Langston at the time the loan note was taken out if he has such an interest in Langston there is no doubt about that.

Castle

with the councils heavy involvement you could also argue that any variation to that particular agreement might be deemed to be illiegal unless ratified and signed off by the council.
But then that would mean that the riddler was making agreements behind peoples backs and the fine upstanding citizen that he is of course eliminates him from any of that sort of behaviour

PR and shady deals wouldn't happen would it.

Well, I'd kind of agree with you, but I'd find it very hard to believe the entire setup would have been made purely to be in City's interest solely. The evasiveness was certainly there for a reason.

Equally, I'd have said getting us into that financial state - and it would be interesting to know if we were effectively insolvent at points during his reign - would not have been acting in the best interests of CCFC. Certainly from a footballing perspective, teams certainly didn't piss money up the wall to the extent we did to climb the ranks. And that in itself is incredibly odd - Hammam certainly didn't do that with Wimbledon.

Sorry but I'm uncomfortable about this. PMG never came to us when the tax man came calling. Not long ago they were calling for their money, now they are buying shares in the club. Something is going on and I'm struggling to beleive it is for the benefit of the club.

Ian, if it wasn't for PMG we wouldn't have a new stadium, they were the catalists who brought in the retail tennants which were crucial for the stadium development to get under way, not forgetting the money they also pumped into the club. What PMG did is no different to what Sam did to the club.

I don't see why they are always made out to be the bad guys.

chris

my point exactly and does anyone think the malaysians would have shown an interest in us if we were still at ramshackle ninian park

Indeed Chris.

Which made me wonder why the Trust pointed the finger at them during our need against the tax man. From that trust support of the statement, written by the CCSC, I came out with the impression that PMG had gained hansomely from this saga.

I actually disagreed with the statement like quite a few others for attacking PMG. However when the tax man came along the fingers started pointing at PMG strongly as most of us were under the impression it was the Malaysians who had paid the tax bill. It is only recently, for me anyway, that this is not the case.

Steve,
Absolutely not, the Malaysians would have never been interested in us if we were still at NP. Sam was though and none of us should forget that. If I recall right when TG first came on the scene he credited the club for the stadium PLUS the academy. Basically summing up he said everything was in place for the club to go forward. Most of this was started by Sam, another reason why we should not forget.

Steve,
Absolutely not, the Malaysians would have never been interested in us if we were still at NP. Sam was though and none of us should forget that. If I recall right when TG first came on the scene he credited the club for the stadium PLUS the academy. Basically summing up he said everything was in place for the club to go forward. Most of this was started by Sam, another reason why we should not forget.

Whilst I fully agree with you Hammam started the process, let's be honest, he couldn't deliver the stadium. An interesting parallel with Dave Jones there

Steve,
Absolutely not, the Malaysians would have never been interested in us if we were still at NP. Sam was though and none of us should forget that. If I recall right when TG first came on the scene he credited the club for the stadium PLUS the academy. Basically summing up he said everything was in place for the club to go forward. Most of this was started by Sam, another reason why we should not forget.

Whilst I fully agree with you Hammam started the process, let's be honest, he couldn't deliver the stadium. An interesting parallel with Dave Jones there

Aye.

Well, I'd kind of agree with you, but I'd find it very hard to believe the entire setup would have been made purely to be in City's interest solely. The evasiveness was certainly there for a reason.

Equally, I'd have said getting us into that financial state - and it would be interesting to know if we were effectively insolvent at points during his reign - would not have been acting in the best interests of CCFC. Certainly from a footballing perspective, teams certainly didn't piss money up the wall to the extent we did to climb the ranks. And that in itself is incredibly odd - Hammam certainly didn't do that with Wimbledon.

Lots of clubs have climbed the ranks without breaking the bank Swansea, Blackpool and Burnley are probably the best recent examples of that but the other side there are clubs like Portsmouth & leeds who have lived beyond their means and folded in spectacular fashion.

I'm not sure if the position of the club in 2004 when Citibank called in their loans meant the club was insolvent, what I do know is that those loans were repaid by arranging another line of finance (Langston). What measure could be used to decide if the expenditure was reasonable or not is surely a matter of opinion, was it reasonable to achieve two promotions and to consolidate in the Championship. Was it in the best interests of CCFC to do all the investigative, design and development work relating to the build of a new stadium? Well my opinion would be Yes. If you were to ask could it have been done for less well surely that comes under the heading of opinion. Law is not based on opinion is it?

Well, I'd kind of agree with you, but I'd find it very hard to believe the entire setup would have been made purely to be in City's interest solely. The evasiveness was certainly there for a reason.

Equally, I'd have said getting us into that financial state - and it would be interesting to know if we were effectively insolvent at points during his reign - would not have been acting in the best interests of CCFC. Certainly from a footballing perspective, teams certainly didn't piss money up the wall to the extent we did to climb the ranks. And that in itself is incredibly odd - Hammam certainly didn't do that with Wimbledon.

Lots of clubs have climbed the ranks without breaking the bank Swansea, Blackpool and Burnley are probably the best recent examples of that but the other side there are clubs like Portsmouth & leeds who have lived beyond their means and folded in spectacular fashion.

I'm not sure if the position of the club in 2004 when Citibank called in their loans meant the club was insolvent, what I do know is that those loans were repaid by arranging another line of finance (Langston). What measure could be used to decide if the expenditure was reasonable or not is surely a matter of opinion, was it reasonable to achieve two promotions and to consolidate in the Championship. Was it in the best interests of CCFC to do all the investigative, design and development work relating to the build of a new stadium? Well my opinion would be Yes. If you were to ask could it have been done for less well surely that comes under the heading of opinion. Law is not based on opinion is it?

Well, pedantically, law is based upon opinion - both sides in a case have their opinion of how the law should be applied; judge or whoever takes all the facts presented before him, makes a judgment ( ignoring jury cases for the example ) and then applies his opinion, weighted by the facts, weighted by historical precedents.

Well, pedantically, law is based upon opinion - both sides in a case have their opinion of how the law should be applied; judge or whoever takes all the facts presented before him, makes a judgment ( ignoring jury cases for the example ) and then applies his opinion, weighted by the facts, weighted by historical precedents.

Nerd you pedantic never

What you are describing is the Breadth Of Discrection Judges are allowed to apply supported by the facts and historical precedents, not opinion in law it's the breadth of discretion.

Now thats pedantic for you.