FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN THE POLITICS OF OUR CLUB

carl werent they paying 83k amonth back and this was confirm by many on here?

Yes the club is paying that back as part of the agreement, I meant that no money has been paid off that was due by Dec 31st 2010, no settlement has been reached.

so the club is paying money back or isn't which is it Carl as you seem to have changed stance once this has been brought up? Or are you trying to sensationalize things in favor of your mate Sam?

as if I am right you've said that no money was being paid back and now you are saying that it is?!?!?!?

Clearly I have stated that the club are paying £83k per month and I have said this on many occasions.

But there was an agreement to settle the whole outstanding amount before Dec 31st 2010, this has not been settled and no other monies have been paid off in addition to the £83k per month that has been public knowledge for some years now.

So then why say the club hasn't paid any money back??? sensationalism??? agenda????

They're paying only the minimum per month, the interest, if that - so not paying anything off the capital sum

carl werent they paying 83k amonth back and this was confirm by many on here?

Yes the club is paying that back as part of the agreement, I meant that no money has been paid off that was due by Dec 31st 2010, no settlement has been reached.

so the club is paying money back or isn't which is it Carl as you seem to have changed stance once this has been brought up? Or are you trying to sensationalize things in favor of your mate Sam?

as if I am right you've said that no money was being paid back and now you are saying that it is?!?!?!?

Clearly I have stated that the club are paying £83k per month and I have said this on many occasions.

But there was an agreement to settle the whole outstanding amount before Dec 31st 2010, this has not been settled and no other monies have been paid off in addition to the £83k per month that has been public knowledge for some years now.

They're paying only the minimum per month, the interest, if that - so not paying anything off the capital sum

That's fine mate. I think the point I'm trying to make though is that Carl's statement said nothing is being paid off, which it clearly is. The question is why make that statement when it is so clearly un-true??? Probably because many people will build up a view based on what he said in the initial post rather than the 'oh yes the 83k per month is being paid'. And hey presto before you know it all the 'followers' on this forum will start saying no money is being paid back and then will form further arguments and sup at the lap of Carl further for the pro-Hammam propaganda to gain momentum again!

So then why say the club hasn't paid any money back??? sensationalism??? agenda????

So would I be right in saying that the Langston issue has just been delayed and delayed with not a penny being paid and 'if' they win any kind of courtcase then interest would be put on top of monies already owed..?

Also has the Malaysians misled Sam then as I was under the impression that they had a good working relationship.

Yes you are right Adam no money has been paid off the Langston debt, interest is adding up and has Sam Hammam been misled then the answer would be categorically yes.

Sam and TG had a very friendly relationship and TG stayed at Sam's home for a few days in Lebanon and all the talk was that the debt would be settled but then a u-turn was made and a statement made on the club's official site http://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/page/New ... 48,00.html

This statement baffled most who have had any involvement through the Langston loan note negotiations and as Gethin Jenkins said in a previous travel group meeting 'the club are awaiting a response from Langston'.

The relationship is not good betweeen Sam and the Malaysians and has not been for many months.

MG, that's not what Carl is saying above.

Perhaps the title of the original post should read 'FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN THE POLITICS OF THIS BOARD' instead???

So would I be right in saying that the Langston issue has just been delayed and delayed with not a penny being paid and 'if' they win any kind of courtcase then interest would be put on top of monies already owed..?

Also has the Malaysians misled Sam then as I was under the impression that they had a good working relationship.

Yes you are right Adam no money has been paid off the Langston debt, interest is adding up and has Sam Hammam been misled then the answer would be categorically yes.

Sam and TG had a very friendly relationship and TG stayed at Sam's home for a few days in Lebanon and all the talk was that the debt would be settled but then a u-turn was made and a statement made on the club's official site http://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/page/New ... 48,00.html

This statement baffled most who have had any involvement through the Langston loan note negotiations and as Gethin Jenkins said in a previous travel group meeting 'the club are awaiting a response from Langston'.

The relationship is not good betweeen Sam and the Malaysians and has not been for many months.

MG, that's not what Carl is saying above.

Perhaps the title of the original post should read 'FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN THE POLITICS OF THIS BOARD' instead???

I disagree because I think there are people outside of the boardroom who stand to gain with the current situation.

and if we are thinking of the same bushy eyebrowed person therein lies my concern and why this nonsense is being peddled today

MG, that's not what Carl is saying above.

Perhaps the title of the original post should read 'FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN THE POLITICS OF THIS BOARD' instead???

Yes you are right Adam no money has been paid off the Langston debt, interest is adding up and has Sam Hammam been misled then the answer would be categorically yes
The debt is the original amount.

Paying off part of the interest each month isn't paying off the debt, it's merely servicing the interest payment.

From the impression I get, the 83k or whatever it is doesn't cover the interest payments, hence the debt growing.

So the club is paying 83k (the interest) off each month.
None of the debt, just the interest.

And for all intensive purposes, that 83k might just be the minimum payment needed to pay the debt; the sum needed to service it wholly, without interest aggregating to the loan could be a lot more.

So would I be right in saying that the Langston issue has just been delayed and delayed with not a penny being paid and 'if' they win any kind of courtcase then interest would be put on top of monies already owed..?

Also has the Malaysians misled Sam then as I was under the impression that they had a good working relationship.

Yes you are right Adam no money has been paid off the Langston debt, interest is adding up and has Sam Hammam been misled then the answer would be categorically yes.

Sam and TG had a very friendly relationship and TG stayed at Sam's home for a few days in Lebanon and all the talk was that the debt would be settled but then a u-turn was made and a statement made on the club's official site http://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/page/New ... 48,00.html

This statement baffled most who have had any involvement through the Langston loan note negotiations and as Gethin Jenkins said in a previous travel group meeting 'the club are awaiting a response from Langston'.

The relationship is not good betweeen Sam and the Malaysians and has not been for many months.

MG, that's not what Carl is saying above.

Perhaps the title of the original post should read 'FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN THE POLITICS OF THIS BOARD' instead???

I disagree because I think there are people outside of the boardroom who stand to gain with the current situation.

and if we are thinking of the same bushy eyebrowed person therein lies my concern and why this nonsense is being peddled today

What about solicitors..? surely their costs must be mounting too fold by now so put that on top of any sum owed as well.

I don't think we can conclude that argument until the end of the whole process, including the forensic accountants. As people have said, TG and VT haven't got where they are by throwing money away. They're clever, I reckon they know what they're doing. If they pay some decent lawyers expenses but end up paying a fraction of the Langston money then it will be money well spent.. wouldn't it??? And we'd probably end up declaring them heroes. Its either a gamble or a well calculated business move, i think looking at their portfolio what I would pick. Though I could be wrong

MG, that's not what Carl is saying above.

Perhaps the title of the original post should read 'FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN THE POLITICS OF THIS BOARD' instead???

Yes you are right Adam no money has been paid off the Langston debt, interest is adding up and has Sam Hammam been misled then the answer would be categorically yes
The debt is the original amount.

Paying off part of the interest each month isn't paying off the debt, it's merely servicing the interest payment.

From the impression I get, the 83k or whatever it is doesn't cover the interest payments, hence the debt growing.

So the club is paying 83k (the interest) off each month.
None of the debt, just the interest.

And for all intensive purposes, that 83k might just be the minimum payment needed to pay the debt; the sum needed to service it wholly, without interest aggregating to the loan could be a lot more.

So yeah, Carl hasn't actually been deceitful or variable on anything he has said

Who cares who really cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets go through the courts we've been there once before.

The Malaysians, Vincent Tan in particular, are far more wealthy than Sam. You don't get to be a billionaire without knowing a thing or two about dodgy dealing and how to play people. If they think they can get away without paying Langston anything, they'll try it.

If the Malaysians don't want to pay Langston now, you can bet they know what they are doing.

I do agree that the sooner this is sorted out, the better, as we will remove the threat of the return of Sam forever.

And good luck to them.

Ha Ha Ha.

You are either a school kid or a blind fool.

And you are just a shit stirring, know all knob. Why are you still on this board. You said your goodbye long ago and don't say it's to keep in touch with friends. If you want to that then pm them or phone them.

The Malaysians, Vincent Tan in particular, are far more wealthy than Sam. You don't get to be a billionaire without knowing a thing or two about dodgy dealing and how to play people. If they think they can get away without paying Langston anything, they'll try it.

If the Malaysians don't want to pay Langston now, you can bet they know what they are doing.

I do agree that the sooner this is sorted out, the better, as we will remove the threat of the return of Sam forever.

And good luck to them.

Ha Ha Ha.

You are either a school kid or a blind fool.

And you are just a shit stirring, know all knob. Why are you still on this board. You said your goodbye long ago and don't say it's to keep in touch with friends. If you want to that then pm them or phone them.

At last nights travel group meeting a member of the travel group (whilst we were on the subject of Alan Whiteley being new CEO) said - "Alan will be a busy man and the first matter he will probably have to deal with is a legal action brought by Langston because you don't have to be Einstein to work out that it is going to happen."

The comment did not surprise me to be honest but the lack of response from around the table certainly did.

There are some who attend the travel group who have been vocal in the past that the money is not payable until 2016, so I was surprised that the statement went unchallenged.

Whether or not legal action is imminent I do not know but I would not be surprised either as it has gone on for far too long and the whole Langston affair needs addressing.

Carl i dont think for one moment legal action is imminent as if a court case is brought by langston there would have to be full disclosure from langston as to who they are.
We all know if that happens it opens up another can of worms regarding people lending money to themselves and charging a third party interest.
I assume your referring to dave sugarman about being vocal but to be honest with you carl the travel meeting is not the time or place to be arguing the merits of the debt

At last nights travel group meeting a member of the travel group (whilst we were on the subject of Alan Whiteley being new CEO) said - "Alan will be a busy man and the first matter he will probably have to deal with is a legal action brought by Langston because you don't have to be Einstein to work out that it is going to happen."

The comment did not surprise me to be honest but the lack of response from around the table certainly did.

There are some who attend the travel group who have been vocal in the past that the money is not payable until 2016, so I was surprised that the statement went unchallenged.

Whether or not legal action is imminent I do not know but I would not be surprised either as it has gone on for far too long and the whole Langston affair needs addressing.

Carl i dont think for one moment legal action is imminent as if a court case is brought by langston there would have to be full disclosure from langston as to who they are.
We all know if that happens it opens up another can of worms regarding people lending money to themselves and charging a third party interest.
I assume your referring to dave sugarman about being vocal but to be honest with you carl the travel meeting is not the time or place to be arguing the merits of the debt

^^ this.

Because this is where things get interesting.

The Malaysians invested, converted a fair whack into equity. Hammam obtained a loan from Langstone who may be Sam, may be his family, with interest on top.

If Hammam had access to the money, then it could easily have been invested in the club.

Two different approaches there, yet the Malaysians seem to be the ones getting the stick.

At last nights travel group meeting a member of the travel group (whilst we were on the subject of Alan Whiteley being new CEO) said - "Alan will be a busy man and the first matter he will probably have to deal with is a legal action brought by Langston because you don't have to be Einstein to work out that it is going to happen."

The comment did not surprise me to be honest but the lack of response from around the table certainly did.

There are some who attend the travel group who have been vocal in the past that the money is not payable until 2016, so I was surprised that the statement went unchallenged.

Whether or not legal action is imminent I do not know but I would not be surprised either as it has gone on for far too long and the whole Langston affair needs addressing.

Carl i dont think for one moment legal action is imminent as if a court case is brought by langston there would have to be full disclosure from langston as to who they are.
We all know if that happens it opens up another can of worms regarding people lending money to themselves and charging a third party interest.
I assume your referring to dave sugarman about being vocal but to be honest with you carl the travel meeting is not the time or place to be arguing the merits of the debt

Steve as I said earlier I don't know whether or not legal action is imminent or not, I only pointed out that certain people have been vocal in stating that the debt is not payable until 2016, if I had been that vocal on such an issue I would have challenged a statement of impending legal action wherever it had been said.

And let me just remind everyone who says that a travel group meeting is not the place to discuss such issues, which I agree with, yet on two occasions over the last 12 months in travel group meetings Gethin Jenkins put me on the spot regarding information relating to Sam Hammam and Langston, where questions were raised by others and Gethin admitted he did not have the answers so proceeded to direct the questions at me and not him.

So when it suits others to take me to task at such meetings then am I not right to expect others to respond in the same manner. Not once have I brought up the subject of Sam Hammam or Langston at these meetings yet others including our outgoing chief executive have directed questions and comments toward myself.

Gethin did so again at Thursdays meeting after his farewell speech he ended it with a quip toward me, which had people sniggering but unfortunately for him the sniggers were at him and not in support of him.

so the club is paying money back or isn't which is it Carl as you seem to have changed stance once this has been brought up? Or are you trying to sensationalize things in favor of your mate Sam?

as if I am right you've said that no money was being paid back and now you are saying that it is?!?!?!?

Clearly I have stated that the club are paying £83k per month and I have said this on many occasions.

But there was an agreement to settle the whole outstanding amount before Dec 31st 2010, this has not been settled and no other monies have been paid off in addition to the £83k per month that has been public knowledge for some years now.

They're paying only the minimum per month, the interest, if that - so not paying anything off the capital sum

That's fine mate. I think the point I'm trying to make though is that Carl's statement said nothing is being paid off, which it clearly is. The question is why make that statement when it is so clearly un-true??? Probably because many people will build up a view based on what he said in the initial post rather than the 'oh yes the 83k per month is being paid'. And hey presto before you know it all the 'followers' on this forum will start saying no money is being paid back and then will form further arguments and sup at the lap of Carl further for the pro-Hammam propaganda to gain momentum again!

So then why say the club hasn't paid any money back??? sensationalism??? agenda????

Natman when was the last £83k monthly payment made?

Because you say it clearly is being paid!

how much money do we owe now then?

how much money do we owe now then?

More than the Malaysians have invested so that will give an indication of how big an issue this is Sam.

oh ffs

At last nights travel group meeting a member of the travel group (whilst we were on the subject of Alan Whiteley being new CEO) said - "Alan will be a busy man and the first matter he will probably have to deal with is a legal action brought by Langston because you don't have to be Einstein to work out that it is going to happen."

The comment did not surprise me to be honest but the lack of response from around the table certainly did.

There are some who attend the travel group who have been vocal in the past that the money is not payable until 2016, so I was surprised that the statement went unchallenged.

Whether or not legal action is imminent I do not know but I would not be surprised either as it has gone on for far too long and the whole Langston affair needs addressing.

Carl i dont think for one moment legal action is imminent as if a court case is brought by langston there would have to be full disclosure from langston as to who they are.
We all know if that happens it opens up another can of worms regarding people lending money to themselves and charging a third party interest.
I assume your referring to dave sugarman about being vocal but to be honest with you carl the travel meeting is not the time or place to be arguing the merits of the debt

Steve as I said earlier I don't know whether or not legal action is imminent or not, I only pointed out that certain people have been vocal in stating that the debt is not payable until 2016, if I had been that vocal on such an issue I would have challenged a statement of impending legal action wherever it had been said.

And let me just remind everyone who says that a travel group meeting is not the place to discuss such issues, which I agree with, yet on two occasions over the last 12 months in travel group meetings Gethin Jenkins put me on the spot regarding information relating to Sam Hammam and Langston, where questions were raised by others and Gethin admitted he did not have the answers so proceeded to direct the questions at me and not him.

So when it suits others to take me to task at such meetings then am I not right to expect others to respond in the same manner. Not once have I brought up the subject of Sam Hammam or Langston at these meetings yet others including our outgoing chief executive have directed questions and comments toward myself.

Gethin did so again at Thursdays meeting after his farewell speech he ended it with a quip toward me, which had people sniggering but unfortunately for him the sniggers were at him and not in support of him.

I have never been aware of Gethin having digs at you in the past Carl but if that is the case it only enforces the point that at times he was unproffesional and that his bullying and arrogant stance has cost him his role at the club.
The travel club should be used for travel issue's only and not for club executives to discuss other club matters and attempt to belittle people.

carl werent they paying 83k amonth back and this was confirm by many on here?

Yes the club is paying that back as part of the agreement, I meant that no money has been paid off that was due by Dec 31st 2010, no settlement has been reached.

so the club is paying money back or isn't which is it Carl as you seem to have changed stance once this has been brought up? Or are you trying to sensationalize things in favor of your mate Sam?

as if I am right you've said that no money was being paid back and now you are saying that it is?!?!?!?

Clearly I have stated that the club are paying £83k per month and I have said this on many occasions.

But there was an agreement to settle the whole outstanding amount before Dec 31st 2010, this has not been settled and no other monies have been paid off in addition to the £83k per month that has been public knowledge for some years now.

So then why say the club hasn't paid any money back??? sensationalism??? agenda????

I think you'll find that the £83,000 monthly cheques topped being paid quite a while back, in fact at the same time as the third loan note agreement deal was broken (you know the one that lot's of knowledgeable people insist was never set up) the new date that was established along with loan notes three was passed without settlement, thus causing the mentioned legal action.

That is the case, unless you know something different to me.

carl werent they paying 83k amonth back and this was confirm by many on here?

Yes the club is paying that back as part of the agreement, I meant that no money has been paid off that was due by Dec 31st 2010, no settlement has been reached.

so the club is paying money back or isn't which is it Carl as you seem to have changed stance once this has been brought up? Or are you trying to sensationalize things in favor of your mate Sam?

as if I am right you've said that no money was being paid back and now you are saying that it is?!?!?!?

The club is paying back £83,000 p/m or £1m a year in interest and has been doing so since January 2010. The reason for this is the club were given until 31/12/09 to find a way of settling a dispute which arose as part of the March 2008 Summary Judgement petition by Langston for immediate repayment of the loan notes. Although that petition was dismissed the Judge ordered that both sides should find a solution by 31/12/09 and in the interim period neither side could take further legal action.

The present threat of legal action stems from failure by the club to honour the new agreement from 31/12/09 to 31/12/10 which gave the club the option to pay off the loan notes for £10m, less any payments already made.

So if Langston went back to court it would have nothing to do with the old loan note agreement (i.e. the repayment by £2016) it would be over the agreement signed by Ridsdale in December 2009 which was NOT honoured by the 31/12/10.

Damages would include the full amount owed (£24m), costs, interest and penalty clauses.

carl werent they paying 83k amonth back and this was confirm by many on here?

Yes the club is paying that back as part of the agreement, I meant that no money has been paid off that was due by Dec 31st 2010, no settlement has been reached.

so the club is paying money back or isn't which is it Carl as you seem to have changed stance once this has been brought up? Or are you trying to sensationalize things in favor of your mate Sam?

as if I am right you've said that no money was being paid back and now you are saying that it is?!?!?!?

The club is paying back £83,000 p/m or £1m a year in interest and has been doing so since January 2010. The reason for this is the club were given until 31/12/09 to find a way of settling a dispute which arose as part of the March 2008 Summary Judgement petition by Langston for immediate repayment of the loan notes. Although that petition was dismissed the Judge ordered that both sides should find a solution by 31/12/09 and in the interim period neither side could take further legal action.

The present threat of legal action stems from failure by the club to honour the new agreement from 31/12/09 to 31/12/10 which gave the club the option to pay off the loan notes for £10m, less any payments already made.

So if Langston went back to court it would have nothing to do with the old loan note agreement (i.e. the repayment by £2016) it would be over the agreement signed by Ridsdale in December 2009 which was NOT honoured by the 31/12/10.

Damages would include the full amount owed (£24m), costs, interest and penalty clauses.

Tony,

Under what grounds could legal action take place - as you posted, the club had the *option* to pay £10m by a certain date. That doesn't in any legal definition make that the new repayment date - just gives the club the option to pay off early.

carl werent they paying 83k amonth back and this was confirm by many on here?

Yes the club is paying that back as part of the agreement, I meant that no money has been paid off that was due by Dec 31st 2010, no settlement has been reached.

so the club is paying money back or isn't which is it Carl as you seem to have changed stance once this has been brought up? Or are you trying to sensationalize things in favor of your mate Sam?

as if I am right you've said that no money was being paid back and now you are saying that it is?!?!?!?

The club is paying back £83,000 p/m or £1m a year in interest and has been doing so since January 2010. The reason for this is the club were given until 31/12/09 to find a way of settling a dispute which arose as part of the March 2008 Summary Judgement petition by Langston for immediate repayment of the loan notes. Although that petition was dismissed the Judge ordered that both sides should find a solution by 31/12/09 and in the interim period neither side could take further legal action.

The present threat of legal action stems from failure by the club to honour the new agreement from 31/12/09 to 31/12/10 which gave the club the option to pay off the loan notes for £10m, less any payments already made.

So if Langston went back to court it would have nothing to do with the old loan note agreement (i.e. the repayment by £2016) it would be over the agreement signed by Ridsdale in December 2009 which was NOT honoured by the 31/12/10.

Damages would include the full amount owed (£24m), costs, interest and penalty clauses.

Tony,

Under what grounds could legal action take place - as you posted, the club had the *option* to pay £10m by a certain date. That doesn't in any legal definition make that the new repayment date - just gives the club the option to pay off early.

Nerd you are assuming the option was to either pay then (31/12/10) or revert to the old agreement. That is not correct the option was to settle by 31/12/10 or face penaty charges and possible further legal action.

The failure to pay by 31/12/10 was a very expensive gamble and it would IMO explain why the comments at the travel group were made about it being a no brainer that Langston would seek legal redress.

If Sam is owed money (however much it is) and he wants it back, CCFC are not giving him anything back at all, then why hasn't he taken them to court?? i can only assume its because he knows its a pointless excercise.

carl werent they paying 83k amonth back and this was confirm by many on here?

Yes the club is paying that back as part of the agreement, I meant that no money has been paid off that was due by Dec 31st 2010, no settlement has been reached.

so the club is paying money back or isn't which is it Carl as you seem to have changed stance once this has been brought up? Or are you trying to sensationalize things in favor of your mate Sam?

as if I am right you've said that no money was being paid back and now you are saying that it is?!?!?!?

The club is paying back £83,000 p/m or £1m a year in interest and has been doing so since January 2010. The reason for this is the club were given until 31/12/09 to find a way of settling a dispute which arose as part of the March 2008 Summary Judgement petition by Langston for immediate repayment of the loan notes. Although that petition was dismissed the Judge ordered that both sides should find a solution by 31/12/09 and in the interim period neither side could take further legal action.

The present threat of legal action stems from failure by the club to honour the new agreement from 31/12/09 to 31/12/10 which gave the club the option to pay off the loan notes for £10m, less any payments already made.

So if Langston went back to court it would have nothing to do with the old loan note agreement (i.e. the repayment by £2016) it would be over the agreement signed by Ridsdale in December 2009 which was NOT honoured by the 31/12/10.

Damages would include the full amount owed (£24m), costs, interest and penalty clauses.

Tony,

Under what grounds could legal action take place - as you posted, the club had the *option* to pay £10m by a certain date. That doesn't in any legal definition make that the new repayment date - just gives the club the option to pay off early.

Nerd you are assuming the option was to either pay then (31/12/10) or revert to the old agreement. That is not correct the option was to settle by 31/12/10 or face penaty charges and possible further legal action.

The failure to pay by 31/12/10 was a very expensive gamble and it would IMO explain why the comments at the travel group were made about it being a no brainer that Langston would seek legal redress.

tony

lots of people have seen this so called document but no one has seen it with the signatures of club officials or langston on it

So would I be right in saying that the Langston issue has just been delayed and delayed with not a penny being paid and 'if' they win any kind of courtcase then interest would be put on top of monies already owed..?

Also has the Malaysians misled Sam then as I was under the impression that they had a good working relationship.

I doubt the club has 20m and I doubt that Tan would pay it, and why would he when he only has 49%.
I'd guess we would enter administration and the secured creditors like tan and pmg getting a little money back.

Off topic slightly. This threads shows that if you ignore Daya he generally stops posting after page 2. Well done to all!!!

carl werent they paying 83k amonth back and this was confirm by many on here?

Yes the club is paying that back as part of the agreement, I meant that no money has been paid off that was due by Dec 31st 2010, no settlement has been reached.

so the club is paying money back or isn't which is it Carl as you seem to have changed stance once this has been brought up? Or are you trying to sensationalize things in favor of your mate Sam?

as if I am right you've said that no money was being paid back and now you are saying that it is?!?!?!?

The club is paying back £83,000 p/m or £1m a year in interest and has been doing so since January 2010. The reason for this is the club were given until 31/12/09 to find a way of settling a dispute which arose as part of the March 2008 Summary Judgement petition by Langston for immediate repayment of the loan notes. Although that petition was dismissed the Judge ordered that both sides should find a solution by 31/12/09 and in the interim period neither side could take further legal action.

The present threat of legal action stems from failure by the club to honour the new agreement from 31/12/09 to 31/12/10 which gave the club the option to pay off the loan notes for £10m, less any payments already made.

So if Langston went back to court it would have nothing to do with the old loan note agreement (i.e. the repayment by £2016) it would be over the agreement signed by Ridsdale in December 2009 which was NOT honoured by the 31/12/10.

Damages would include the full amount owed (£24m), costs, interest and penalty clauses.

Tony,

Under what grounds could legal action take place - as you posted, the club had the *option* to pay £10m by a certain date. That doesn't in any legal definition make that the new repayment date - just gives the club the option to pay off early.

Nerd you are assuming the option was to either pay then (31/12/10) or revert to the old agreement. That is not correct the option was to settle by 31/12/10 or face penaty charges and possible further legal action.

The failure to pay by 31/12/10 was a very expensive gamble and it would IMO explain why the comments at the travel group were made about it being a no brainer that Langston would seek legal redress.

Was it? What you've described isn't an option whatsoever.

The club had the option to convert some of the PMG money into equity. The club could exercise that option, as they did, or not.

The reason I believe your view isn't the reality is that it makes zero business sense whatsoever. If Hammam was behind Langston / family members were, then the money was available to invest in other forms than a loan with interest.

Ergo, it's clear it was more a business decision to go that route. Make some money from the loan via the interest.

Why then would somebody - anybody - willingly waive £14m, over half the amount allegedly owed, for early repayment. That makes little sense to me. That indicates to me a weakness in the position taken by Langston. After all, legal action would entail revealing who is behind Langston, which I very much doubt would be in their interests.

So, looking at the £10m offer, I, if I was VT or TG, would be asking myself who really has the leverage in the situation. Admin would hardly benefit Langston, as an unsecured loan. Obviously that's the nuclear option, but anyway, there was an offer on the table to pay back far less than half the claimed amount. with that in mind, my mindset wouldn't be "this is a fantastic deal", it would be "why on earth would they write off £14m"? I'd be looking to either drive the amount down further or investigsate further to try to understand why so much was being written off. I'd suspect the latter is the approach being undertaken, hence the forensic accountants involvement.

Either way, I don't believe Langston would relish a court trial. I don't believe the Malaysians would be lying awake at night fearing it.

Was it? What you've described isn't an option whatsoever.

The club had the option to convert some of the PMG money into equity. The club could exercise that option, as they did, or not.

The reason I believe your view isn't the reality is that it makes zero business sense whatsoever. If Hammam was behind Langston / family members were, then the money was available to invest in other forms than a loan with interest.

Ergo, it's clear it was more a business decision to go that route. Make some money from the loan via the interest.

Why then would somebody - anybody - willingly waive £14m, over half the amount allegedly owed, for early repayment. That makes little sense to me. That indicates to me a weakness in the position taken by Langston. After all, legal action would entail revealing who is behind Langston, which I very much doubt would be in their interests.

So, looking at the £10m offer, I, if I was VT or TG, would be asking myself who really has the leverage in the situation. Admin would hardly benefit Langston, as an unsecured loan. Obviously that's the nuclear option, but anyway, there was an offer on the table to pay back far less than half the claimed amount. with that in mind, my mindset wouldn't be "this is a fantastic deal", it would be "why on earth would they write off £14m"? I'd be looking to either drive the amount down further or investigsate further to try to understand why so much was being written off. I'd suspect the latter is the approach being undertaken, hence the forensic accountants involvement.

Either way, I don't believe Langston would relish a court trial. I don't believe the Malaysians would be lying awake at night fearing it.

TBH with you Nerd you are splitting hairs over the word 'option'

You asked a question and I answered it for you, the Malaysians had an 'option' to pay £10m to settle the Langston debt once and for all, but they failed to do so and now penalty clauses have kicked in as that was part of the agreement signed by Ridsdale in 2009.

The rest of your reply is conjecture, who knows why Langston (who are a consortium of wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen) were willing to write off £14m? The real point is they were willing to do so to settle the matter once and for all. As for forensic accountants don't you think they should have found something by now? They have been at it for nearly a year and we have heard nothing.

Nobody relishes court action but Langston just might have a point to prove and if the club were liquidated as a result of any action taken by them many other people (including VT & TG) will lose massive amounts of money as the secured assets are now where near the amount needed to settle all the outstanding debts.

by any chance have we or the courts found out who is langston ?

if sam loved our club so much why did he get us into so much debt...to Langston...

lots of people have seen this so called document but no one has seen it with the signatures of club officials or langston on it

Steve you obviously have a point in that we don't have the document to hand and therefore the actual detail might be different to what I or you believe there is.

However, we do know that an agreement was signed in December 2009 (I'm sure you can ask Steve Borley if that is the case) and what we are debating is what we believe is the ramifications of that agreement for the club once they decided not take up the option to pay £10m to settle the loan notes before the 31/12/10.