FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN THE POLITICS OF OUR CLUB

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...

You don't need a court order to find out who Langston are, just a copy of 'My Life' by Annis Abrahams Jr.

Drop the boss a PM and I'm sure he will sort you out a copy.

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...

Would it matter if it was Citibank, LloydsTSB or Langston, no it wouldn't.

We are in debt to the Malaysians, do you think or believe they will one day walk and say forget the cash have a nice a day?

Sam, our saviour...

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.

Tony

This whole thread seems to be missing a very important fact.

The matter of what legal documents exist and are in force was specifically raised at the recent EGM (the one where the latest conversion of debts into shares was approved).I know , because I raised the point to try and get some clarity on an issue on which widely differing opinions have been expressed on here.

To make it crystal clear to readers of this board , it was clearly and categorically stated by the then CEO and FD that the only legal agreement in force with Langston was the one in which no repayments (interest or capital) are payable until the end of 2016. No other agreement whatsoever - the question was asked twice to avoid any misunderstanding.

On the top table with those two were the majority of the other board members , including TG , Alan Whitely , Steve Borley and Paul Guy.None of the other board members raised any query over the statement and neither did Carl , who was also present representing a shareholder , who I know has a different opinion based on papers Sam has shown him and/or the opinions of the position given by Sam to a selected view.

The EGM would surely be the appropriate forum , and the easiest opportunity . to express an alternative view or query what was said , but no-one chose to do so.And that includes Sam himself , whose company Rudgwick remains a shareholder and therefore had a right to a voice at the meeting.

To me , what is openly said in a formal legally convened meeting that is the normal format for such topics and was totally unchallenged by those with an alternative view carries far more weight than a "throwaway"comment made at a meeting whose purpose is to ensure fans get the best treatment on travel to away games.

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

Believe me solicitors won't wait until the end of the process for their monies owed. They will leave their clients out in the cold if their bills aren't paid on time and believe me they will charge for every phonecall, e-mail and meeting so to say that we can't conclude the issue of solicitors fees until the end of the whole process is not correct.[/quote]

i think you missed. what i'm trying to say is an outlay on solicitors isn't too bad if it saves us millions in the long run by sorting out the debt rather than naively paying it back

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.

Nerd... superb mate!!! Nail head hit!!!

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!

Then Carl, i think you need to check the tense of your verbs as you state above "the club are paying". Present tense, so is being paid!

the debt will probably always be there. the whole thing is in a complete mess and it only really plays into the clubs hands as while its in dispute the won't feel obliged to say a thing!

Karma will solve the situation.

Karma will solve the situation.

oh yes, this stale malaysian club which is doing away with all our tradition but made a point of remembering Brian clarke today!!!

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.

But who made the comment Carl?

Was it a club offical?

If not perhaps that is why it went unchallenged.

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.

But who made the comment Carl?

Was it a club offical?

If not perhaps that is why it went unchallenged.

Elwood as you and others will have noted over the last 18 months, I do not name people but do comment on the situations.

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.

But who made the comment Carl?

Was it a club offical?

If not perhaps that is why it went unchallenged.

Elwood as you and others will have noted over the last 18 months, I do not name people but do comment on the situations.

Carl

If you wr talking about a confidntial source I could understand.

But you are talking about a meting between supporters and the club which as far as I jnow is not confidential.

And I was not asking the name just raising the point that it maks a big difference who made the comment.

Regards

Elwood

According to TLG on CCMB it was Vince Alm who mad th commnt

Can't se why this couldn't hav been statd at the outset.

According to TLG on CCMB it was Vince Alm who mad th commnt

Can't se why this couldn't hav been statd at the outset.

Yes it was Vince, now that he has been named elsewhere Elwood.

As I said I was surprised his comments went unchallenged.

Ah yes. Now the points get ignored at in order to save face and avoid embarrasment

Ah yes. Now the points get ignored at in order to save face and avoid embarrasment

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.

Tony

This whole thread seems to be missing a very important fact.

The matter of what legal documents exist and are in force was specifically raised at the recent EGM (the one where the latest conversion of debts into shares was approved).I know , because I raised the point to try and get some clarity on an issue on which widely differing opinions have been expressed on here.

To make it crystal clear to readers of this board , it was clearly and categorically stated by the then CEO and FD that the only legal agreement in force with Langston was the one in which no repayments (interest or capital) are payable until the end of 2016. No other agreement whatsoever - the question was asked twice to avoid any misunderstanding.

On the top table with those two were the majority of the other board members , including TG , Alan Whitely , Steve Borley and Paul Guy.None of the other board members raised any query over the statement and neither did Carl , who was also present representing a shareholder , who I know has a different opinion based on papers Sam has shown him and/or the opinions of the position given by Sam to a selected view.

The EGM would surely be the appropriate forum , and the easiest opportunity . to express an alternative view or query what was said , but no-one chose to do so.And that includes Sam himself , whose company Rudgwick remains a shareholder and therefore had a right to a voice at the meeting.

To me , what is openly said in a formal legally convened meeting that is the normal format for such topics and was totally unchallenged by those with an alternative view carries far more weight than a "throwaway"comment made at a meeting whose purpose is to ensure fans get the best treatment on travel to away games.

Keith the reason I did not make any comments at the EGM was the fact by right I should not have been there. The form of proxy had to be left or sent by post and received not later than 48 hours before the scheduled meeting.

Due to any concerns I may have raised, I felt that is was not safe to do so as the form had not been sent in but was in my possession at the said meeting.

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.

Tony

This whole thread seems to be missing a very important fact.

The matter of what legal documents exist and are in force was specifically raised at the recent EGM (the one where the latest conversion of debts into shares was approved).I know , because I raised the point to try and get some clarity on an issue on which widely differing opinions have been expressed on here.

To make it crystal clear to readers of this board , it was clearly and categorically stated by the then CEO and FD that the only legal agreement in force with Langston was the one in which no repayments (interest or capital) are payable until the end of 2016. No other agreement whatsoever - the question was asked twice to avoid any misunderstanding.

On the top table with those two were the majority of the other board members , including TG , Alan Whitely , Steve Borley and Paul Guy.None of the other board members raised any query over the statement and neither did Carl , who was also present representing a shareholder , who I know has a different opinion based on papers Sam has shown him and/or the opinions of the position given by Sam to a selected view.

The EGM would surely be the appropriate forum , and the easiest opportunity . to express an alternative view or query what was said , but no-one chose to do so.And that includes Sam himself , whose company Rudgwick remains a shareholder and therefore had a right to a voice at the meeting.

To me , what is openly said in a formal legally convened meeting that is the normal format for such topics and was totally unchallenged by those with an alternative view carries far more weight than a "throwaway"comment made at a meeting whose purpose is to ensure fans get the best treatment on travel to away games.

Keith, as you say above that there is a legal document in force relating to Langston and appears in the accounts but I must ask then if Langston has appeared in the latest accounts and the ones prior to it since the introduction of the loan note then why would forensic accountants be deemed necessary when they have been fully disclosed and signed off by the club auditors, its directors year after year.

You also say that no payments are payable until 2016 yet the club made 12 monthly payments of £83k per month for the whole of 2010, why would that be?

I note on December 12th 2009 your close friend and former supporters trust committee member posted the following five key elements to the Langston loan note 2 to which you are referring.

1) Payment by the club to Langston of £83,333.33 per calendar month from January 2010 until December 2016, when the remaining balance of £8,000,001 will be due.

2) Waiving of all interest by Langston, both historical and future.

3) Major incentives for early repayment of the debt which could see the club's liability reduce dramatically (eg: if the debt is settled in full by December 2010, the sum payable will be £10 million; if it is paid in full by December 2011, the amount required by Langston will be £11 million; if it is settled by December 2012, the total sum will be £12 million; and so on.)

4) Payment by the club to Langston of up to £5 million if the team wins promotion to the Premiership or the stadium naming rights are sold - whichever happens first.

5) Removal of the threat of further legal action against the club by Langston for the foreseeable future.

I can categorically say that number is wrong.

Number 2 is wrong.

Number 3 is partly correct in that a final settlement figure of £15 million was required by 31/12/10 to settle in full at discount or £10 million payable by 31/12/10 and followed by two tranches of £5million bonuses, promotion and naming rights. The stuff about £11million if settled by 31/12/11 or £12million if settled by 31/12/12 is not true, I believe Dave was somewhat starstruck and looked up to fondly the former chairman Peter Ridsdale believing everything that Peter was telling him. When people claim that documents were never never signed then this would be that document but whilst the i's were being dotted and the t's were being crossed (remember Peter stating that at the municipal club regarding Langston) a temporary contract was drawn up before finalisation of the fuller contract. And that would be the one I speak of.

Number 4 well look at number 3 and you will find the answer you seek.

Number 5 - how long is the foreseeable future - I like that one.

Hope this helps you but I do look forward to your reply.

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.

Tony

This whole thread seems to be missing a very important fact.

The matter of what legal documents exist and are in force was specifically raised at the recent EGM (the one where the latest conversion of debts into shares was approved).I know , because I raised the point to try and get some clarity on an issue on which widely differing opinions have been expressed on here.

To make it crystal clear to readers of this board , it was clearly and categorically stated by the then CEO and FD that the only legal agreement in force with Langston was the one in which no repayments (interest or capital) are payable until the end of 2016. No other agreement whatsoever - the question was asked twice to avoid any misunderstanding.

On the top table with those two were the majority of the other board members , including TG , Alan Whitely , Steve Borley and Paul Guy.None of the other board members raised any query over the statement and neither did Carl , who was also present representing a shareholder , who I know has a different opinion based on papers Sam has shown him and/or the opinions of the position given by Sam to a selected view.

The EGM would surely be the appropriate forum , and the easiest opportunity . to express an alternative view or query what was said , but no-one chose to do so.And that includes Sam himself , whose company Rudgwick remains a shareholder and therefore had a right to a voice at the meeting.

To me , what is openly said in a formal legally convened meeting that is the normal format for such topics and was totally unchallenged by those with an alternative view carries far more weight than a "throwaway"comment made at a meeting whose purpose is to ensure fans get the best treatment on travel to away games.

Keith the reason I did not make any comments at the EGM was the fact by right I should not have been there. The form of proxy had to be left or sent by post and received not later than 48 hours before the scheduled meeting.

Due to any concerns I may have raised, I felt that is was not safe to do so as the form had not been sent in but was in my possession at the said meeting.

That`s a reasonable comment Carl - although you could easily have queried what was said (it wasn`t a voting matter requiring a proxy). And you also didn`t report on here what was said , which was in direct contradiction of claims about a mystery "other agreement" on here so that a balanced view could be taken by readers of the board.

So many on here have been led to believe there is some agreement which heavily favours Sam/Langstone without any public claim to that effect by Sam himself (and so relying just on hearsay).And yet they have not been kept informed of a public statement on the matter by the club which directly contradicts such a view.

Keith

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.

Tony

This whole thread seems to be missing a very important fact.

The matter of what legal documents exist and are in force was specifically raised at the recent EGM (the one where the latest conversion of debts into shares was approved).I know , because I raised the point to try and get some clarity on an issue on which widely differing opinions have been expressed on here.

To make it crystal clear to readers of this board , it was clearly and categorically stated by the then CEO and FD that the only legal agreement in force with Langston was the one in which no repayments (interest or capital) are payable until the end of 2016. No other agreement whatsoever - the question was asked twice to avoid any misunderstanding.

On the top table with those two were the majority of the other board members , including TG , Alan Whitely , Steve Borley and Paul Guy.None of the other board members raised any query over the statement and neither did Carl , who was also present representing a shareholder , who I know has a different opinion based on papers Sam has shown him and/or the opinions of the position given by Sam to a selected view.

The EGM would surely be the appropriate forum , and the easiest opportunity . to express an alternative view or query what was said , but no-one chose to do so.And that includes Sam himself , whose company Rudgwick remains a shareholder and therefore had a right to a voice at the meeting.

To me , what is openly said in a formal legally convened meeting that is the normal format for such topics and was totally unchallenged by those with an alternative view carries far more weight than a "throwaway"comment made at a meeting whose purpose is to ensure fans get the best treatment on travel to away games.

Keith the reason I did not make any comments at the EGM was the fact by right I should not have been there. The form of proxy had to be left or sent by post and received not later than 48 hours before the scheduled meeting.

Due to any concerns I may have raised, I felt that is was not safe to do so as the form had not been sent in but was in my possession at the said meeting.

That`s a reasonable comment Carl - although you could easily have queried what was said (it wasn`t a voting matter requiring a proxy). And you also didn`t report on here what was said , which was in direct contradiction of claims about a mystery "other agreement" on here so that a balanced view could be taken by readers of the board.

So many on here have been led to believe there is some agreement which heavily favours Sam/Langstone without any public claim to that effect by Sam himself (and so relying just on hearsay).And yet they have not been kept informed of a public statement on the matter by the club which directly contradicts such a view.

Keith

Keith the blog regarding the EGM written by your friend and former supporters trust committee member was posted on here immediately after he posted it online. So the 'other side' was there for all to see.

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.

Tony

This whole thread seems to be missing a very important fact.

The matter of what legal documents exist and are in force was specifically raised at the recent EGM (the one where the latest conversion of debts into shares was approved).I know , because I raised the point to try and get some clarity on an issue on which widely differing opinions have been expressed on here.

To make it crystal clear to readers of this board , it was clearly and categorically stated by the then CEO and FD that the only legal agreement in force with Langston was the one in which no repayments (interest or capital) are payable until the end of 2016. No other agreement whatsoever - the question was asked twice to avoid any misunderstanding.

On the top table with those two were the majority of the other board members , including TG , Alan Whitely , Steve Borley and Paul Guy.None of the other board members raised any query over the statement and neither did Carl , who was also present representing a shareholder , who I know has a different opinion based on papers Sam has shown him and/or the opinions of the position given by Sam to a selected view.

The EGM would surely be the appropriate forum , and the easiest opportunity . to express an alternative view or query what was said , but no-one chose to do so.And that includes Sam himself , whose company Rudgwick remains a shareholder and therefore had a right to a voice at the meeting.

To me , what is openly said in a formal legally convened meeting that is the normal format for such topics and was totally unchallenged by those with an alternative view carries far more weight than a "throwaway"comment made at a meeting whose purpose is to ensure fans get the best treatment on travel to away games.

Keith, as you say above that there is a legal document in force relating to Langston and appears in the accounts but I must ask then if Langston has appeared in the latest accounts and the ones prior to it since the introduction of the loan note then why would forensic accountants be deemed necessary when they have been fully disclosed and signed off by the club auditors, its directors year after year.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEIR LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT SAYS AND THEREFORE WHAT THE SCOPE OF THEIR WORK WAS SET OUT TO BE.THE ONLY THING I KNOW IS THAT THE EGM WAS TOLD THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS "ONGOING" AT THAT TIME AND WAS CONFIRMED AS BEING IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH TOOK PLACE DURING THE TIME SAM WAS IN CHARGE OF THE CLUB.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACCOUNTS BEING SUITABLE TO BE SIGNED OFF BY AUDITORS AND FORENSIC ACCOUNTING WORK.FOR INSTANCE , IT IS SPECIFICALLY NOT THE TASK OF THE AUDITORS TO INVESTIGATE ANY FRAUD WHICH MIGHT HAVE TAKEN PLACE (FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF ANY DOUBT , I AM NOT SUGGESTING THERE HAS BEEN ANY FRAUD , JUST GIVING AN EXAMPLE).



You also say that no payments are payable until 2016 yet the club made 12 monthly payments of £83k per month for the whole of 2010, why would that be?

TO MINIMISE ACCRUING INTEREST CHARGES WHICH RUN AT 7% P.A. ON THE CAPITAL SUM OF £15M OF THE DEBT RECORDED AS DUE TO LANGSTONE.

I note on December 12th 2009 your close friend and former supporters trust committee member posted the following five key elements to the Langston loan note 2 to which you are referring.

YOU ARE REFERRING HERE TO DAVE SUGARMAN.HE IS A FORMER FELLOW TRUST BOARD MEMBER (FROM SOME TIME AGO NOW) BUT IS CERTAINLY NOT A CLOSE FRIEND (NO OFFENCE DAVE IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE READING THIS) AS I ONLY KNOW HIM THROUGH THAT CONTACT AND WHEN WE BUMP INTO EACH OTHER AT MATCHES AND THE OCCASIONAL TRUST OR OTHER SOCIAL EVENT.TO CALL DAVE A CLOSE FRIEND OF MINE WOULD BE MISLEADING PEOPLE READING THIS BOARD.

1) Payment by the club to Langston of £83,333.33 per calendar month from January 2010 until December 2016, when the remaining balance of £8,000,001 will be due.

THE £83K A MONTH IS A SUM EQUIVALENT TO THE INTEREST ACCRUING ON A DEBT OF £15M AT 7% PER ANNUM.AS AND WHEN PAID , IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE DEBT DUE WOULD REMAIN AT £15M RATHER THAN INCREASE EACH YEAR.

2) Waiving of all interest by Langston, both historical and future.

INTEREST HAS CERTAINLY BEEN CHARGED UP TO AND INCLUDING THE MAY 2010 ACCOUNTS , SO WE AGREE ON THAT.I HAVE NO IDEA IF IT HAS BEEN ACCRUING SINCE AS I HAVE SEEN NO SUBSEQUENT ACCOUNTS (AND NEITHER HAS ANYONE ELSE OUTSIDE THE CLUB`S BOARD).

3) Major incentives for early repayment of the debt which could see the club's liability reduce dramatically (eg: if the debt is settled in full by December 2010, the sum payable will be £10 million; if it is paid in full by December 2011, the amount required by Langston will be £11 million; if it is settled by December 2012, the total sum will be £12 million; and so on.)

I HAVE ALWAYS AGREED THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO SETTLE THE DEBT FOR £10M PLUS A PROMOTION BONUS IF SETTLED BY 31 DECEMBER 2010 AND THAT THE CLUB CHOSE NOT TO DO SO BY THE DEADLINE .THE STADIUM NAMING RIGHTS PAYMENT IS , AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN , A BIT OF A "RED HERRING" IN THAT IT WILLNEVER BE PAYABLE BY THE CLUB ITSELF , BUT BY WHOEVER PAYS FOR SUCH RIGHTS(AND EVEN THEN ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF WHAT THEY ACTUALLY PAY , EVEN IF FAR LESS THAN £5M).

I RECALL THAT YOU AND I HAVE HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE "SLIDING SCALE" PAYMENT AGREEMENT AND THAT I ACCEPTED THAT SUCH AN AGREEMENT WAS NEVER FINALISED.

4) Payment by the club to Langston of up to £5 million if the team wins promotion to the Premiership or the stadium naming rights are sold - whichever happens first.

THE PROMOTION BONUS WAS LINKED TO A PROMOTION DATE (WHICH NOW CANNOT BE ACHIEVED) OR TO A LATER DATE IF THE £15M CAPITAL SUM STILL REMAINED UNPAID AT THE DATE OF PROMOTION.

5) Removal of the threat of further legal action against the club by Langston for the foreseeable future.

THERE WAS AN INITIAL EMBARGO PUT ON BOTH THE CLUB AND LANGSTONE AT THE INITIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT HEARING WHICH I BELIEVE HAS NOW LAPSED SOME TIME AGO , SO THERE MAY WELL NOW BE NO LEGAL OBSTRUCTION TO SUCH LEGAL ACTION.PRACTICAL AND COMMERCIAL REASONS MAY BE A DIFFERENT MATTER.



I can categorically say that number is wrong.

WHICH NUMBER IS WRONG , AND HOW CAN YOU SAY SO "CATEGORICALLY"?

Number 2 is wrong.

Number 3 is partly correct in that a final settlement figure of £15 million was required by 31/12/10 to settle in full at discount or £10 million payable by 31/12/10 and followed by two tranches of £5million bonuses, promotion and naming rights. The stuff about £11million if settled by 31/12/11 or £12million if settled by 31/12/12 is not true, I believe Dave was somewhat starstruck and looked up to fondly the former chairman Peter Ridsdale believing everything that Peter was telling him. When people claim that documents were never never signed then this would be that document but whilst the i's were being dotted and the t's were being crossed (remember Peter stating that at the municipal club regarding Langston) a temporary contract was drawn up before finalisation of the fuller contract. And that would be the one I speak of.

Number 4 well look at number 3 and you will find the answer you seek.

Number 5 - how long is the foreseeable future - I like that one.

Hope this helps you but I do look forward to your reply.

I have set out my responses above.

This is a tricky area , but I genuinely feel that too often only one side of the argument is promoted when there is an opportunity to discuss and debate sensibly both sets of opinions and to distinguish between readily proveable facts and public official statements and hearsay and rumour.

Thank you for the opportunity to put across my views and the reasons for them on one of my (very rare) posts to this board .

Keith

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.

Tony

This whole thread seems to be missing a very important fact.

The matter of what legal documents exist and are in force was specifically raised at the recent EGM (the one where the latest conversion of debts into shares was approved).I know , because I raised the point to try and get some clarity on an issue on which widely differing opinions have been expressed on here.

To make it crystal clear to readers of this board , it was clearly and categorically stated by the then CEO and FD that the only legal agreement in force with Langston was the one in which no repayments (interest or capital) are payable until the end of 2016. No other agreement whatsoever - the question was asked twice to avoid any misunderstanding.

On the top table with those two were the majority of the other board members , including TG , Alan Whitely , Steve Borley and Paul Guy.None of the other board members raised any query over the statement and neither did Carl , who was also present representing a shareholder , who I know has a different opinion based on papers Sam has shown him and/or the opinions of the position given by Sam to a selected view.

The EGM would surely be the appropriate forum , and the easiest opportunity . to express an alternative view or query what was said , but no-one chose to do so.And that includes Sam himself , whose company Rudgwick remains a shareholder and therefore had a right to a voice at the meeting.

To me , what is openly said in a formal legally convened meeting that is the normal format for such topics and was totally unchallenged by those with an alternative view carries far more weight than a "throwaway"comment made at a meeting whose purpose is to ensure fans get the best treatment on travel to away games.

Keith the reason I did not make any comments at the EGM was the fact by right I should not have been there. The form of proxy had to be left or sent by post and received not later than 48 hours before the scheduled meeting.

Due to any concerns I may have raised, I felt that is was not safe to do so as the form had not been sent in but was in my possession at the said meeting.

That`s a reasonable comment Carl - although you could easily have queried what was said (it wasn`t a voting matter requiring a proxy). And you also didn`t report on here what was said , which was in direct contradiction of claims about a mystery "other agreement" on here so that a balanced view could be taken by readers of the board.

So many on here have been led to believe there is some agreement which heavily favours Sam/Langstone without any public claim to that effect by Sam himself (and so relying just on hearsay).And yet they have not been kept informed of a public statement on the matter by the club which directly contradicts such a view.

Keith

Carl, this is what I am geting. Which is plain for everyone to see. There's an agenda and only certain favourable bits of information are being pushed, published and alluded to in order to get what certain posters on this board want... the return of Sam.

Hence when any of my challenges gain credible weight or credence i'm faced with a or people completely ignore the point and take issue with an something on the periphery of what I am saying.

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.

Tony

This whole thread seems to be missing a very important fact.

The matter of what legal documents exist and are in force was specifically raised at the recent EGM (the one where the latest conversion of debts into shares was approved).I know , because I raised the point to try and get some clarity on an issue on which widely differing opinions have been expressed on here.

To make it crystal clear to readers of this board , it was clearly and categorically stated by the then CEO and FD that the only legal agreement in force with Langston was the one in which no repayments (interest or capital) are payable until the end of 2016. No other agreement whatsoever - the question was asked twice to avoid any misunderstanding.

On the top table with those two were the majority of the other board members , including TG , Alan Whitely , Steve Borley and Paul Guy.None of the other board members raised any query over the statement and neither did Carl , who was also present representing a shareholder , who I know has a different opinion based on papers Sam has shown him and/or the opinions of the position given by Sam to a selected view.

The EGM would surely be the appropriate forum , and the easiest opportunity . to express an alternative view or query what was said , but no-one chose to do so.And that includes Sam himself , whose company Rudgwick remains a shareholder and therefore had a right to a voice at the meeting.

To me , what is openly said in a formal legally convened meeting that is the normal format for such topics and was totally unchallenged by those with an alternative view carries far more weight than a "throwaway"comment made at a meeting whose purpose is to ensure fans get the best treatment on travel to away games.

Keith, as you say above that there is a legal document in force relating to Langston and appears in the accounts but I must ask then if Langston has appeared in the latest accounts and the ones prior to it since the introduction of the loan note then why would forensic accountants be deemed necessary when they have been fully disclosed and signed off by the club auditors, its directors year after year.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEIR LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT SAYS AND THEREFORE WHAT THE SCOPE OF THEIR WORK WAS SET OUT TO BE.THE ONLY THING I KNOW IS THAT THE EGM WAS TOLD THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS "ONGOING" AT THAT TIME AND WAS CONFIRMED AS BEING IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH TOOK PLACE DURING THE TIME SAM WAS IN CHARGE OF THE CLUB.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACCOUNTS BEING SUITABLE TO BE SIGNED OFF BY AUDITORS AND FORENSIC ACCOUNTING WORK.FOR INSTANCE , IT IS SPECIFICALLY NOT THE TASK OF THE AUDITORS TO INVESTIGATE ANY FRAUD WHICH MIGHT HAVE TAKEN PLACE (FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF ANY DOUBT , I AM NOT SUGGESTING THERE HAS BEEN ANY FRAUD , JUST GIVING AN EXAMPLE).



You also say that no payments are payable until 2016 yet the club made 12 monthly payments of £83k per month for the whole of 2010, why would that be?

TO MINIMISE ACCRUING INTEREST CHARGES WHICH RUN AT 7% P.A. ON THE CAPITAL SUM OF £15M OF THE DEBT RECORDED AS DUE TO LANGSTONE.

I note on December 12th 2009 your close friend and former supporters trust committee member posted the following five key elements to the Langston loan note 2 to which you are referring.

YOU ARE REFERRING HERE TO DAVE SUGARMAN.HE IS A FORMER FELLOW TRUST BOARD MEMBER (FROM SOME TIME AGO NOW) BUT IS CERTAINLY NOT A CLOSE FRIEND (NO OFFENCE DAVE IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE READING THIS) AS I ONLY KNOW HIM THROUGH THAT CONTACT AND WHEN WE BUMP INTO EACH OTHER AT MATCHES AND THE OCCASIONAL TRUST OR OTHER SOCIAL EVENT.TO CALL DAVE A CLOSE FRIEND OF MINE WOULD BE MISLEADING PEOPLE READING THIS BOARD.

1) Payment by the club to Langston of £83,333.33 per calendar month from January 2010 until December 2016, when the remaining balance of £8,000,001 will be due.

THE £83K A MONTH IS A SUM EQUIVALENT TO THE INTEREST ACCRUING ON A DEBT OF £15M AT 7% PER ANNUM.AS AND WHEN PAID , IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE DEBT DUE WOULD REMAIN AT £15M RATHER THAN INCREASE EACH YEAR.

2) Waiving of all interest by Langston, both historical and future.

INTEREST HAS CERTAINLY BEEN CHARGED UP TO AND INCLUDING THE MAY 2010 ACCOUNTS , SO WE AGREE ON THAT.I HAVE NO IDEA IF IT HAS BEEN ACCRUING SINCE AS I HAVE SEEN NO SUBSEQUENT ACCOUNTS (AND NEITHER HAS ANYONE ELSE OUTSIDE THE CLUB`S BOARD).

3) Major incentives for early repayment of the debt which could see the club's liability reduce dramatically (eg: if the debt is settled in full by December 2010, the sum payable will be £10 million; if it is paid in full by December 2011, the amount required by Langston will be £11 million; if it is settled by December 2012, the total sum will be £12 million; and so on.)

I HAVE ALWAYS AGREED THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO SETTLE THE DEBT FOR £10M PLUS A PROMOTION BONUS IF SETTLED BY 31 DECEMBER 2010 AND THAT THE CLUB CHOSE NOT TO DO SO BY THE DEADLINE .THE STADIUM NAMING RIGHTS PAYMENT IS , AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN , A BIT OF A "RED HERRING" IN THAT IT WILLNEVER BE PAYABLE BY THE CLUB ITSELF , BUT BY WHOEVER PAYS FOR SUCH RIGHTS(AND EVEN THEN ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF WHAT THEY ACTUALLY PAY , EVEN IF FAR LESS THAN £5M).

I RECALL THAT YOU AND I HAVE HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE "SLIDING SCALE" PAYMENT AGREEMENT AND THAT I ACCEPTED THAT SUCH AN AGREEMENT WAS NEVER FINALISED.

4) Payment by the club to Langston of up to £5 million if the team wins promotion to the Premiership or the stadium naming rights are sold - whichever happens first.

THE PROMOTION BONUS WAS LINKED TO A PROMOTION DATE (WHICH NOW CANNOT BE ACHIEVED) OR TO A LATER DATE IF THE £15M CAPITAL SUM STILL REMAINED UNPAID AT THE DATE OF PROMOTION.

5) Removal of the threat of further legal action against the club by Langston for the foreseeable future.

THERE WAS AN INITIAL EMBARGO PUT ON BOTH THE CLUB AND LANGSTONE AT THE INITIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT HEARING WHICH I BELIEVE HAS NOW LAPSED SOME TIME AGO , SO THERE MAY WELL NOW BE NO LEGAL OBSTRUCTION TO SUCH LEGAL ACTION.PRACTICAL AND COMMERCIAL REASONS MAY BE A DIFFERENT MATTER.



I can categorically say that number is wrong.

WHICH NUMBER IS WRONG , AND HOW CAN YOU SAY SO "CATEGORICALLY"?

Number 2 is wrong.

Number 3 is partly correct in that a final settlement figure of £15 million was required by 31/12/10 to settle in full at discount or £10 million payable by 31/12/10 and followed by two tranches of £5million bonuses, promotion and naming rights. The stuff about £11million if settled by 31/12/11 or £12million if settled by 31/12/12 is not true, I believe Dave was somewhat starstruck and looked up to fondly the former chairman Peter Ridsdale believing everything that Peter was telling him. When people claim that documents were never never signed then this would be that document but whilst the i's were being dotted and the t's were being crossed (remember Peter stating that at the municipal club regarding Langston) a temporary contract was drawn up before finalisation of the fuller contract. And that would be the one I speak of.

Number 4 well look at number 3 and you will find the answer you seek.

Number 5 - how long is the foreseeable future - I like that one.

Hope this helps you but I do look forward to your reply.

I have set out my responses above.

This is a tricky area , but I genuinely feel that too often only one side of the argument is promoted when there is an opportunity to discuss and debate sensibly both sets of opinions and to distinguish between readily proveable facts and public official statements and hearsay and rumour.

Thank you for the opportunity to put across my views and the reasons for them on one of my (very rare) posts to this board .

Keith

So going by the responses you have given Keith would you concur that 5 key elements agreement set out in the blog by Dave Sugarman would not be factually correct on the information and answers that has been provided in this thread.

A simple yes or no would be suffice.

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.

Tony

This whole thread seems to be missing a very important fact.

The matter of what legal documents exist and are in force was specifically raised at the recent EGM (the one where the latest conversion of debts into shares was approved).I know , because I raised the point to try and get some clarity on an issue on which widely differing opinions have been expressed on here.

To make it crystal clear to readers of this board , it was clearly and categorically stated by the then CEO and FD that the only legal agreement in force with Langston was the one in which no repayments (interest or capital) are payable until the end of 2016. No other agreement whatsoever - the question was asked twice to avoid any misunderstanding.

On the top table with those two were the majority of the other board members , including TG , Alan Whitely , Steve Borley and Paul Guy.None of the other board members raised any query over the statement and neither did Carl , who was also present representing a shareholder , who I know has a different opinion based on papers Sam has shown him and/or the opinions of the position given by Sam to a selected view.

The EGM would surely be the appropriate forum , and the easiest opportunity . to express an alternative view or query what was said , but no-one chose to do so.And that includes Sam himself , whose company Rudgwick remains a shareholder and therefore had a right to a voice at the meeting.

To me , what is openly said in a formal legally convened meeting that is the normal format for such topics and was totally unchallenged by those with an alternative view carries far more weight than a "throwaway"comment made at a meeting whose purpose is to ensure fans get the best treatment on travel to away games.

Keith the reason I did not make any comments at the EGM was the fact by right I should not have been there. The form of proxy had to be left or sent by post and received not later than 48 hours before the scheduled meeting.

Due to any concerns I may have raised, I felt that is was not safe to do so as the form had not been sent in but was in my possession at the said meeting.

That`s a reasonable comment Carl - although you could easily have queried what was said (it wasn`t a voting matter requiring a proxy). And you also didn`t report on here what was said , which was in direct contradiction of claims about a mystery "other agreement" on here so that a balanced view could be taken by readers of the board.

So many on here have been led to believe there is some agreement which heavily favours Sam/Langstone without any public claim to that effect by Sam himself (and so relying just on hearsay).And yet they have not been kept informed of a public statement on the matter by the club which directly contradicts such a view.

Keith

Carl, this is what I am geting. Which is plain for everyone to see. There's an agenda and only certain favourable bits of information are being pushed, published and alluded to in order to get what certain posters on this board want... the return of Sam.

Hence when any of my challenges gain credible weight or credence i'm faced with a or people completely ignore the point and take issue with an something on the periphery of what I am saying.

Natman as I said to Keith, the blog written by TLG was posted on this site and was there for all to read, so to say that only one side of the argument is being peddled would be wrong and misleading by you.

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.

Tony

This whole thread seems to be missing a very important fact.

The matter of what legal documents exist and are in force was specifically raised at the recent EGM (the one where the latest conversion of debts into shares was approved).I know , because I raised the point to try and get some clarity on an issue on which widely differing opinions have been expressed on here.

To make it crystal clear to readers of this board , it was clearly and categorically stated by the then CEO and FD that the only legal agreement in force with Langston was the one in which no repayments (interest or capital) are payable until the end of 2016. No other agreement whatsoever - the question was asked twice to avoid any misunderstanding.

On the top table with those two were the majority of the other board members , including TG , Alan Whitely , Steve Borley and Paul Guy.None of the other board members raised any query over the statement and neither did Carl , who was also present representing a shareholder , who I know has a different opinion based on papers Sam has shown him and/or the opinions of the position given by Sam to a selected view.

The EGM would surely be the appropriate forum , and the easiest opportunity . to express an alternative view or query what was said , but no-one chose to do so.And that includes Sam himself , whose company Rudgwick remains a shareholder and therefore had a right to a voice at the meeting.

To me , what is openly said in a formal legally convened meeting that is the normal format for such topics and was totally unchallenged by those with an alternative view carries far more weight than a "throwaway"comment made at a meeting whose purpose is to ensure fans get the best treatment on travel to away games.

Keith, as you say above that there is a legal document in force relating to Langston and appears in the accounts but I must ask then if Langston has appeared in the latest accounts and the ones prior to it since the introduction of the loan note then why would forensic accountants be deemed necessary when they have been fully disclosed and signed off by the club auditors, its directors year after year.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEIR LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT SAYS AND THEREFORE WHAT THE SCOPE OF THEIR WORK WAS SET OUT TO BE.THE ONLY THING I KNOW IS THAT THE EGM WAS TOLD THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS "ONGOING" AT THAT TIME AND WAS CONFIRMED AS BEING IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH TOOK PLACE DURING THE TIME SAM WAS IN CHARGE OF THE CLUB.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACCOUNTS BEING SUITABLE TO BE SIGNED OFF BY AUDITORS AND FORENSIC ACCOUNTING WORK.FOR INSTANCE , IT IS SPECIFICALLY NOT THE TASK OF THE AUDITORS TO INVESTIGATE ANY FRAUD WHICH MIGHT HAVE TAKEN PLACE (FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF ANY DOUBT , I AM NOT SUGGESTING THERE HAS BEEN ANY FRAUD , JUST GIVING AN EXAMPLE).



You also say that no payments are payable until 2016 yet the club made 12 monthly payments of £83k per month for the whole of 2010, why would that be?

TO MINIMISE ACCRUING INTEREST CHARGES WHICH RUN AT 7% P.A. ON THE CAPITAL SUM OF £15M OF THE DEBT RECORDED AS DUE TO LANGSTONE.

I note on December 12th 2009 your close friend and former supporters trust committee member posted the following five key elements to the Langston loan note 2 to which you are referring.

YOU ARE REFERRING HERE TO DAVE SUGARMAN.HE IS A FORMER FELLOW TRUST BOARD MEMBER (FROM SOME TIME AGO NOW) BUT IS CERTAINLY NOT A CLOSE FRIEND (NO OFFENCE DAVE IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE READING THIS) AS I ONLY KNOW HIM THROUGH THAT CONTACT AND WHEN WE BUMP INTO EACH OTHER AT MATCHES AND THE OCCASIONAL TRUST OR OTHER SOCIAL EVENT.TO CALL DAVE A CLOSE FRIEND OF MINE WOULD BE MISLEADING PEOPLE READING THIS BOARD.

1) Payment by the club to Langston of £83,333.33 per calendar month from January 2010 until December 2016, when the remaining balance of £8,000,001 will be due.

THE £83K A MONTH IS A SUM EQUIVALENT TO THE INTEREST ACCRUING ON A DEBT OF £15M AT 7% PER ANNUM.AS AND WHEN PAID , IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE DEBT DUE WOULD REMAIN AT £15M RATHER THAN INCREASE EACH YEAR.

2) Waiving of all interest by Langston, both historical and future.

INTEREST HAS CERTAINLY BEEN CHARGED UP TO AND INCLUDING THE MAY 2010 ACCOUNTS , SO WE AGREE ON THAT.I HAVE NO IDEA IF IT HAS BEEN ACCRUING SINCE AS I HAVE SEEN NO SUBSEQUENT ACCOUNTS (AND NEITHER HAS ANYONE ELSE OUTSIDE THE CLUB`S BOARD).

3) Major incentives for early repayment of the debt which could see the club's liability reduce dramatically (eg: if the debt is settled in full by December 2010, the sum payable will be £10 million; if it is paid in full by December 2011, the amount required by Langston will be £11 million; if it is settled by December 2012, the total sum will be £12 million; and so on.)

I HAVE ALWAYS AGREED THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO SETTLE THE DEBT FOR £10M PLUS A PROMOTION BONUS IF SETTLED BY 31 DECEMBER 2010 AND THAT THE CLUB CHOSE NOT TO DO SO BY THE DEADLINE .THE STADIUM NAMING RIGHTS PAYMENT IS , AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN , A BIT OF A "RED HERRING" IN THAT IT WILLNEVER BE PAYABLE BY THE CLUB ITSELF , BUT BY WHOEVER PAYS FOR SUCH RIGHTS(AND EVEN THEN ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF WHAT THEY ACTUALLY PAY , EVEN IF FAR LESS THAN £5M).

I RECALL THAT YOU AND I HAVE HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE "SLIDING SCALE" PAYMENT AGREEMENT AND THAT I ACCEPTED THAT SUCH AN AGREEMENT WAS NEVER FINALISED.

4) Payment by the club to Langston of up to £5 million if the team wins promotion to the Premiership or the stadium naming rights are sold - whichever happens first.

THE PROMOTION BONUS WAS LINKED TO A PROMOTION DATE (WHICH NOW CANNOT BE ACHIEVED) OR TO A LATER DATE IF THE £15M CAPITAL SUM STILL REMAINED UNPAID AT THE DATE OF PROMOTION.

5) Removal of the threat of further legal action against the club by Langston for the foreseeable future.

THERE WAS AN INITIAL EMBARGO PUT ON BOTH THE CLUB AND LANGSTONE AT THE INITIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT HEARING WHICH I BELIEVE HAS NOW LAPSED SOME TIME AGO , SO THERE MAY WELL NOW BE NO LEGAL OBSTRUCTION TO SUCH LEGAL ACTION.PRACTICAL AND COMMERCIAL REASONS MAY BE A DIFFERENT MATTER.



I can categorically say that number is wrong.

WHICH NUMBER IS WRONG , AND HOW CAN YOU SAY SO "CATEGORICALLY"?

Number 2 is wrong.

Number 3 is partly correct in that a final settlement figure of £15 million was required by 31/12/10 to settle in full at discount or £10 million payable by 31/12/10 and followed by two tranches of £5million bonuses, promotion and naming rights. The stuff about £11million if settled by 31/12/11 or £12million if settled by 31/12/12 is not true, I believe Dave was somewhat starstruck and looked up to fondly the former chairman Peter Ridsdale believing everything that Peter was telling him. When people claim that documents were never never signed then this would be that document but whilst the i's were being dotted and the t's were being crossed (remember Peter stating that at the municipal club regarding Langston) a temporary contract was drawn up before finalisation of the fuller contract. And that would be the one I speak of.

Number 4 well look at number 3 and you will find the answer you seek.

Number 5 - how long is the foreseeable future - I like that one.

Hope this helps you but I do look forward to your reply.

I have set out my responses above.

This is a tricky area , but I genuinely feel that too often only one side of the argument is promoted when there is an opportunity to discuss and debate sensibly both sets of opinions and to distinguish between readily proveable facts and public official statements and hearsay and rumour.

Thank you for the opportunity to put across my views and the reasons for them on one of my (very rare) posts to this board .

Keith

So going by the responses you have given Keith would you concur that 5 key elements agreement set out in the blog by Dave Sugarman would not be factually correct on the information and answers that has been provided in this thread.

A simple yes or no would be suffice.

But a simple yes or no won`t suffice at all (just be open to misinterpretation). Which is why I dealt with each of the points in turn in my response.

Are you able to say why you disagree with what you were told at the EGM about there categorically only being one Langstone agreement in force (the one payable by 2016)? Just in simple terms like you have been shown a signed legal document which says differently or the alternative that you have been told that such a document exists.You don`t have to say who showed you any such document or the alternative of who told you (to understandably protect anonymity). But it would make things far clearer if you stated which alternative applies.

My advice to you all is don't worry about a thing. Let the legal eagles get on with their work. They’ll
Make a fortune out of any court case.

Natman as I said to Keith, the blog written by TLG was posted on this site and was there for all to read, so to say that only one side of the argument is being peddled would be wrong and misleading by you.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

No because within this post you are not presenting a balanced argument. this above only serves to prove my point further as you make no reference to it until Keith brought it up. You are presenting your 'facts' as you call them in order to illicit a desired response.. to garner fans support behind your opinions for the return of Sam and to undermine the current owners of the club

But a simple yes or no won`t suffice at all (just be open to misinterpretation). Which is why I dealt with each of the points in turn in my response.

Are you able to say why you disagree with what you were told at the EGM about there categorically only being one Langstone agreement in force (the one payable by 2016)? Just in simple terms like you have been shown a signed legal document which says differently or the alternative that you have been told that such a document exists.You don`t have to say who showed you any such document or the alternative of who told you (to understandably protect anonymity). But it would make things far clearer if you stated which alternative applies.

Keith, that is exactly why they want a simple yes or no. They don't deal with facts, just their slant on them in order to promote their view for the reasons I've stated above. Good on you for tackling this head on, I applaud you sir!!!!

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.

Tony

This whole thread seems to be missing a very important fact.

The matter of what legal documents exist and are in force was specifically raised at the recent EGM (the one where the latest conversion of debts into shares was approved).I know , because I raised the point to try and get some clarity on an issue on which widely differing opinions have been expressed on here.

To make it crystal clear to readers of this board , it was clearly and categorically stated by the then CEO and FD that the only legal agreement in force with Langston was the one in which no repayments (interest or capital) are payable until the end of 2016. No other agreement whatsoever - the question was asked twice to avoid any misunderstanding.

On the top table with those two were the majority of the other board members , including TG , Alan Whitely , Steve Borley and Paul Guy.None of the other board members raised any query over the statement and neither did Carl , who was also present representing a shareholder , who I know has a different opinion based on papers Sam has shown him and/or the opinions of the position given by Sam to a selected view.

The EGM would surely be the appropriate forum , and the easiest opportunity . to express an alternative view or query what was said , but no-one chose to do so.And that includes Sam himself , whose company Rudgwick remains a shareholder and therefore had a right to a voice at the meeting.

To me , what is openly said in a formal legally convened meeting that is the normal format for such topics and was totally unchallenged by those with an alternative view carries far more weight than a "throwaway"comment made at a meeting whose purpose is to ensure fans get the best treatment on travel to away games.

Keith, as you say above that there is a legal document in force relating to Langston and appears in the accounts but I must ask then if Langston has appeared in the latest accounts and the ones prior to it since the introduction of the loan note then why would forensic accountants be deemed necessary when they have been fully disclosed and signed off by the club auditors, its directors year after year.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEIR LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT SAYS AND THEREFORE WHAT THE SCOPE OF THEIR WORK WAS SET OUT TO BE.THE ONLY THING I KNOW IS THAT THE EGM WAS TOLD THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS "ONGOING" AT THAT TIME AND WAS CONFIRMED AS BEING IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH TOOK PLACE DURING THE TIME SAM WAS IN CHARGE OF THE CLUB.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACCOUNTS BEING SUITABLE TO BE SIGNED OFF BY AUDITORS AND FORENSIC ACCOUNTING WORK.FOR INSTANCE , IT IS SPECIFICALLY NOT THE TASK OF THE AUDITORS TO INVESTIGATE ANY FRAUD WHICH MIGHT HAVE TAKEN PLACE (FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF ANY DOUBT , I AM NOT SUGGESTING THERE HAS BEEN ANY FRAUD , JUST GIVING AN EXAMPLE).



You also say that no payments are payable until 2016 yet the club made 12 monthly payments of £83k per month for the whole of 2010, why would that be?

TO MINIMISE ACCRUING INTEREST CHARGES WHICH RUN AT 7% P.A. ON THE CAPITAL SUM OF £15M OF THE DEBT RECORDED AS DUE TO LANGSTONE.

I note on December 12th 2009 your close friend and former supporters trust committee member posted the following five key elements to the Langston loan note 2 to which you are referring.

YOU ARE REFERRING HERE TO DAVE SUGARMAN.HE IS A FORMER FELLOW TRUST BOARD MEMBER (FROM SOME TIME AGO NOW) BUT IS CERTAINLY NOT A CLOSE FRIEND (NO OFFENCE DAVE IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE READING THIS) AS I ONLY KNOW HIM THROUGH THAT CONTACT AND WHEN WE BUMP INTO EACH OTHER AT MATCHES AND THE OCCASIONAL TRUST OR OTHER SOCIAL EVENT.TO CALL DAVE A CLOSE FRIEND OF MINE WOULD BE MISLEADING PEOPLE READING THIS BOARD.

1) Payment by the club to Langston of £83,333.33 per calendar month from January 2010 until December 2016, when the remaining balance of £8,000,001 will be due.

THE £83K A MONTH IS A SUM EQUIVALENT TO THE INTEREST ACCRUING ON A DEBT OF £15M AT 7% PER ANNUM.AS AND WHEN PAID , IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE DEBT DUE WOULD REMAIN AT £15M RATHER THAN INCREASE EACH YEAR.

2) Waiving of all interest by Langston, both historical and future.

INTEREST HAS CERTAINLY BEEN CHARGED UP TO AND INCLUDING THE MAY 2010 ACCOUNTS , SO WE AGREE ON THAT.I HAVE NO IDEA IF IT HAS BEEN ACCRUING SINCE AS I HAVE SEEN NO SUBSEQUENT ACCOUNTS (AND NEITHER HAS ANYONE ELSE OUTSIDE THE CLUB`S BOARD).

3) Major incentives for early repayment of the debt which could see the club's liability reduce dramatically (eg: if the debt is settled in full by December 2010, the sum payable will be £10 million; if it is paid in full by December 2011, the amount required by Langston will be £11 million; if it is settled by December 2012, the total sum will be £12 million; and so on.)

I HAVE ALWAYS AGREED THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO SETTLE THE DEBT FOR £10M PLUS A PROMOTION BONUS IF SETTLED BY 31 DECEMBER 2010 AND THAT THE CLUB CHOSE NOT TO DO SO BY THE DEADLINE .THE STADIUM NAMING RIGHTS PAYMENT IS , AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN , A BIT OF A "RED HERRING" IN THAT IT WILLNEVER BE PAYABLE BY THE CLUB ITSELF , BUT BY WHOEVER PAYS FOR SUCH RIGHTS(AND EVEN THEN ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF WHAT THEY ACTUALLY PAY , EVEN IF FAR LESS THAN £5M).

I RECALL THAT YOU AND I HAVE HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE "SLIDING SCALE" PAYMENT AGREEMENT AND THAT I ACCEPTED THAT SUCH AN AGREEMENT WAS NEVER FINALISED.

4) Payment by the club to Langston of up to £5 million if the team wins promotion to the Premiership or the stadium naming rights are sold - whichever happens first.

THE PROMOTION BONUS WAS LINKED TO A PROMOTION DATE (WHICH NOW CANNOT BE ACHIEVED) OR TO A LATER DATE IF THE £15M CAPITAL SUM STILL REMAINED UNPAID AT THE DATE OF PROMOTION.

5) Removal of the threat of further legal action against the club by Langston for the foreseeable future.

THERE WAS AN INITIAL EMBARGO PUT ON BOTH THE CLUB AND LANGSTONE AT THE INITIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT HEARING WHICH I BELIEVE HAS NOW LAPSED SOME TIME AGO , SO THERE MAY WELL NOW BE NO LEGAL OBSTRUCTION TO SUCH LEGAL ACTION.PRACTICAL AND COMMERCIAL REASONS MAY BE A DIFFERENT MATTER.



I can categorically say that number is wrong.

WHICH NUMBER IS WRONG , AND HOW CAN YOU SAY SO "CATEGORICALLY"?

Number 2 is wrong.

Number 3 is partly correct in that a final settlement figure of £15 million was required by 31/12/10 to settle in full at discount or £10 million payable by 31/12/10 and followed by two tranches of £5million bonuses, promotion and naming rights. The stuff about £11million if settled by 31/12/11 or £12million if settled by 31/12/12 is not true, I believe Dave was somewhat starstruck and looked up to fondly the former chairman Peter Ridsdale believing everything that Peter was telling him. When people claim that documents were never never signed then this would be that document but whilst the i's were being dotted and the t's were being crossed (remember Peter stating that at the municipal club regarding Langston) a temporary contract was drawn up before finalisation of the fuller contract. And that would be the one I speak of.

Number 4 well look at number 3 and you will find the answer you seek.

Number 5 - how long is the foreseeable future - I like that one.

Hope this helps you but I do look forward to your reply.

I have set out my responses above.

This is a tricky area , but I genuinely feel that too often only one side of the argument is promoted when there is an opportunity to discuss and debate sensibly both sets of opinions and to distinguish between readily proveable facts and public official statements and hearsay and rumour.

Thank you for the opportunity to put across my views and the reasons for them on one of my (very rare) posts to this board .

Keith

So going by the responses you have given Keith would you concur that 5 key elements agreement set out in the blog by Dave Sugarman would not be factually correct on the information and answers that has been provided in this thread.

A simple yes or no would be suffice.

But a simple yes or no won`t suffice at all (just be open to misinterpretation). Which is why I dealt with each of the points in turn in my response.

Are you able to say why you disagree with what you were told at the EGM about there categorically only being one Langstone agreement in force (the one payable by 2016)? Just in simple terms like you have been shown a signed legal document which says differently or the alternative that you have been told that such a document exists.You don`t have to say who showed you any such document or the alternative of who told you (to understandably protect anonymity). But it would make things far clearer if you stated which alternative applies.

Keith I cannot ever recall stating that the Langston agreement you refer too is not the one in force, I can only ever recall saying that the monies is due immediately and not 2016.

Also Keith the Langston agreement you refer to as being force was drawn up in 2006 is commonly known as 'loan note 2' yet in 2009 a third agreement was reached and in it were 5 key elements, the first being £83k paid every month starting from January 2010 ( But this is not the case as payments stopped in December 2010). The second being a vast reduction for early settlement year on year ie. £10million if paid by the end of 2010, £11million if paid by the end of 2011, £12million if paid by the end of 2012 and so on but now it is claimed that the 2006 agreement is in place.

Do you believe that the third agreement was ever in force?