Question for Keith 62

What (if any) would the legal ramifications if it was proved Sam Hammam actually is/was
Langston?

stone him

What (if any) would the legal ramifications if it was proved Sam Hammam actually is/was
Langston?

None as Langston is a number of business people who have invested, due to Sam putting it all together.
If there was any legal ramifications, it would of been done in the last 7 years and rem Tan has had the big guns out on this.

I won't be getting involved in any debate about it, as it shows Tan would not be negotiating if he thought he could get out of it, a fact.

I just want it all sorted, City Debt Free as promised/stated and then Tan sell on and our Identity back that's all I want

What (if any) would the legal ramifications if it was proved Sam Hammam actually is/was
Langston?

None as Langston is a number of business people who have invested, due to Sam putting it all together.
If there was any legal ramifications, it would of been done in the last 7 years and rem Tan has had the big guns out on this.

I won't be getting involved in any debate about it, as it shows Tan would not be negotiating if he thought he could get out of it, a fact.

I just want it all sorted, City Debt Free as promised/stated and then Tan sell on and our Identity back that's all I want

That response makes perfect sense, Annis. VT would not have allowed things to get this far if there was even a hint at an escape route

As I said elsewhere, I sincerely hope this really is the 'End Game'

How anyone can defend this man after Black Friday I do not know.

How anyone can defend this man after Black Friday I do not know.

Agreed. Be quite happy to never see him around again.

How anyone can defend this man after Black Friday I do not know.

Agreed. Be quite happy to never see him around again.

Its f*cking embarrasing that people want to be wanted and seen to be ITK that they will blow this man off

What (if any) would the legal ramifications if it was proved Sam Hammam actually is/was
Langston?

None as Langston is a number of business people who have invested, due to Sam putting it all together.
If there was any legal ramifications, it would of been done in the last 7 years and rem Tan has had the big guns out on this.

I won't be getting involved in any debate about it, as it shows Tan would not be negotiating if he thought he could get out of it, a fact.

I just want it all sorted, City Debt Free as promised/stated and then Tan sell on and our Identity back that's all I want

if you do not want to get involved in a debate, Why did you reply to a question that was not asked of you?

So why would all these business people want Sam on the board surely they'd rather just have cash an not waste there time helping a guy who's basically lost them millions?

What (if any) would the legal ramifications if it was proved Sam Hammam actually is/was
Langston?

None as Langston is a number of business people who have invested, due to Sam putting it all together.
If there was any legal ramifications, it would of been done in the last 7 years and rem Tan has had the big guns out on this.

I won't be getting involved in any debate about it, as it shows Tan would not be negotiating if he thought he could get out of it, a fact.

I just want it all sorted, City Debt Free as promised/stated and then Tan sell on and our Identity back that's all I want

if you do not want to get involved in a debate, Why did you reply to a question that was not asked of you?

Because I have stated the facts and there is nothing to debate about as thy are true, if Tan could have proved stuff against Langston/Sam, Tan old not have even entered in to any negotiations and I have been present when the two of them have talked.
There is no doubt a deal has to be struck, end off.

What (if any) would the legal ramifications if it was proved Sam Hammam actually is/was
Langston?

None as Langston is a number of business people who have invested, due to Sam putting it all together.
If there was any legal ramifications, it would of been done in the last 7 years and rem Tan has had the big guns out on this.

I won't be getting involved in any debate about it, as it shows Tan would not be negotiating if he thought he could get out of it, a fact.

I just want it all sorted, City Debt Free as promised/stated and then Tan sell on and our Identity back that's all I want

if you do not want to get involved in a debate, Why did you reply to a question that was not asked of you?

Because I have stated the facts and there is nothing to debate about as thy are true, if Tan could have proved stuff against Langston/Sam, Tan old not have even entered in to any negotiations and I have been present when the two of them have talked.
There is no doubt a deal has to be struck, end off.

You've stated Sams facts.

For all you know Tan CAN and HAS proved stuff against Hammam, not enough for him to send him away empty
handed but enough for him to run for the hills at the idea of High Court again. None of us know different, and
you only hear ONE side


Mr Justice Briggs concluded there was also a “real prospect” that a full trial would conclusively prove that Sam
Hammam was “the governing mind and will” of the Langston Corporation at all times.

This is a Qualified Judge, a highly professional man who saw BOTH sides of the argument. A man who understood
all the legal jargon and technicalities. To all intents and purposes he was calling Sam Hammam a liar where the
whole world could see it.

But my original post doesnt ask any of that. it asks Keith what the legal ramifications would be if he WAS proved
to be Langston.

What (if any) would the legal ramifications if it was proved Sam Hammam actually is/was
Langston?

None as Langston is a number of business people who have invested, due to Sam putting it all together.
If there was any legal ramifications, it would of been done in the last 7 years and rem Tan has had the big guns out on this.

I won't be getting involved in any debate about it, as it shows Tan would not be negotiating if he thought he could get out of it, a fact.

I just want it all sorted, City Debt Free as promised/stated and then Tan sell on and our Identity back that's all I want

if you do not want to get involved in a debate, Why did you reply to a question that was not asked of you?

Because I have stated the facts and there is nothing to debate about as thy are true, if Tan could have proved stuff against Langston/Sam, Tan old not have even entered in to any negotiations and I have been present when the two of them have talked.
There is no doubt a deal has to be struck, end off.

You've stated Sams facts.

For all you know Tan CAN and HAS proved stuff against Hammam, not enough for him to send him away empty
handed but enough for him to run for the hills at the idea of High Court again. None of us know different, and
you only hear ONE side


Mr Justice Briggs concluded there was also a “real prospect” that a full trial would conclusively prove that Sam
Hammam was “the governing mind and will” of the Langston Corporation at all times.

This is a Qualified Judge, a highly professional man who saw BOTH sides of the argument. A man who understood
all the legal jargon and technicalities. To all intents and purposes he was calling Sam Hammam a liar where the
whole world could see it.

But my original post doesnt ask any of that. it asks Keith what the legal ramifications would be if he WAS proved
to be Langston.

Interesting, I've read all that before and so has Tan.
Tan calls Sam a friend, wants to work with Sam, is willing to give Sam money and shares for the debt and even a position at our club.

What (if any) would the legal ramifications if it was proved Sam Hammam actually is/was
Langston?

None as Langston is a number of business people who have invested, due to Sam putting it all together.
If there was any legal ramifications, it would of been done in the last 7 years and rem Tan has had the big guns out on this.

I won't be getting involved in any debate about it, as it shows Tan would not be negotiating if he thought he could get out of it, a fact.

I just want it all sorted, City Debt Free as promised/stated and then Tan sell on and our Identity back that's all I want

if you do not want to get involved in a debate, Why did you reply to a question that was not asked of you?

Because I have stated the facts and there is nothing to debate about as thy are true, if Tan could have proved stuff against Langston/Sam, Tan old not have even entered in to any negotiations and I have been present when the two of them have talked.
There is no doubt a deal has to be struck, end off.

I suppose it swings both ways. As you say if Tan could have proved anything was wrong about the Langston debt then he wouldn't be negotiating with Sam. They obviously haven't and Sam will get something back from the money he loaned the club under the guise of Langston. However the debt is obviously only repayable in 2016 as per the original agreement and summary judgment, if it was due any earlier Sam would have taken the club to court again. Neither Tan or Sam want this to run until 2016, because it will cost the club more in the long run and who knows where the club will be in 2016 to pay back a debt.

Hammann is a parasite, a leach that is clinging on this club, the only good thing the riddler done was oust this clown from the club, I hope tan sorts redraw to rid this crook from our club once and for all, just ask any Wimbledon fan what they think of him and what he done to them, basically took enough money out to bankrupt them, I actually doubt whether this £32m we owe Langston who i believe is Sam and Sam alone no one else actually ever existed, did he really plough £32m into Cardiff city FC? I suppose only the directors at the time would know the whole truth but with isaacs PMG borley also ploughing millions in between them I fin it hard to believe the club owed that much money out over such a short period of years and If that was the case it's no wonder we were on the brink of winding up

Good riddance I say

My original question still stands though. It APPEARS to everyone that Sam Hammam IS Langstone. If that
was a proveable fact, would he have been acting illegally regarding the loans. "If Tan had anything we
would have found out by now" does not wash with me. Because we have no idea if he's found anything or
not. The only thing its safe to say is that if he has found anything shady about what Hammam was up to,
then it isnt enough to force him to walk away with nothing.

Any outsider looking in at this whole mess would surely walk away saying that Langstone is as shady as f**k.
The High Court judge obviously thought so

But thats ok, because Sam has obviously told his lifelong confidential business friends like Carl
that ''im straight down the line me brother"

Sam is going to be mascot at home games!! Thats all he will be doing.vt is not perfect but he has invested his own money to drag us into the promised land albeit with some hissy fits from some people over the colour change!!i hope v.t kicks his "friend" into touch with his bushy f*cking eyebrows between his legs.

As soon as Sam is paid off and a grace period has passed you can guarantee a book will be coming out about the whole affair with version of events from some side and so on and how the fiasco played out. Whoever pens it I don't know but it's an absolute given that it will happen. I for one don't believe Sam will go away even if he's paid off and isn't given a role at the club.

How anyone can defend this man after Black Friday I do not know.

Agreed. Be quite happy to never see him around again.

I agree 100%.

What (if any) would the legal ramifications if it was proved Sam Hammam actually is/was
Langston?

None as Langston is a number of business people who have invested, due to Sam putting it all together.
If there was any legal ramifications, it would of been done in the last 7 years and rem Tan has had the big guns out on this.

I won't be getting involved in any debate about it, as it shows Tan would not be negotiating if he thought he could get out of it, a fact.

I just want it all sorted, City Debt Free as promised/stated and then Tan sell on and our Identity back that's all I want

if you do not want to get involved in a debate, Why did you reply to a question that was not asked of you?

Because I have stated the facts and there is nothing to debate about as thy are true, if Tan could have proved stuff against Langston/Sam, Tan old not have even entered in to any negotiations and I have been present when the two of them have talked.
There is no doubt a deal has to be struck, end off.

You've stated Sams facts.

For all you know Tan CAN and HAS proved stuff against Hammam, not enough for him to send him away empty
handed but enough for him to run for the hills at the idea of High Court again. None of us know different, and
you only hear ONE side


Mr Justice Briggs concluded there was also a “real prospect” that a full trial would conclusively prove that Sam
Hammam was “the governing mind and will” of the Langston Corporation at all times.

This is a Qualified Judge, a highly professional man who saw BOTH sides of the argument. A man who understood
all the legal jargon and technicalities. To all intents and purposes he was calling Sam Hammam a liar where the
whole world could see it.

But my original post doesnt ask any of that. it asks Keith what the legal ramifications would be if he WAS proved
to be Langston.

Interesting, I've read all that before and so has Tan.
Tan calls Sam a friend, wants to work with Sam, is willing to give Sam money and shares for the debt and even a position at our club.

Annis , I've never met you. I don't know Carl either. BUT have you let out too much info here ?
You were present at talks and now tell us "Tan calls Sam a friend, wants to work with Sam, is willing to give Sam money and shares for the debt and even a position at our club".
Is this the deal you were involved with ? Have you let too much info out ?
I personally have no grudge against Sam (would even like him back) , but if this deal is correct the Anti-Sam brigade will be all over it !