Steve borley, carl curtis, and langston.

After yesterday's announcement can anyone recall the argument on this board in feb 2012 where steve borley told carl curtis the langston loan notes " were not worth a tripe supper" ?

Tripe must have just shot up in value.

After yesterday's announcement can anyone recall the argument on this board in feb 2012 where steve borley told carl curtis the langston loan notes " were not worth a tripe supper" ?

Tripe must have just shot up in value.

The quote is on page 3 of this thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=73581&hilit=tripe+supper&start=60

After yesterday's announcement can anyone recall the argument on this board in feb 2012 where steve borley told carl curtis the langston loan notes " were not worth a tripe supper" ?

Tripe must have just shot up in value.

I think people missed the point. steve wasent saying the loan notes were worthless he was saying that langston could not borrow money against them security wise.
In other words no bank or financial institution would accept them as security or a guarantee against a loan wishing to be taken out by langston

After yesterday's announcement can anyone recall the argument on this board in feb 2012 where steve borley told carl curtis the langston loan notes " were not worth a tripe supper" ?

Tripe must have just shot up in value.

I think people missed the point. steve wasent saying the loan notes were worthless he was saying that langston could not borrow money against them security wise.
In other words no bank or financial institution would accept them as security or a guarantee against a loan wishing to be taken out by langston

Why wouldn't an investor loan money against them? Tan called in forensic accountants, barristers etc and found the deal watertight, as proved by yesterday's events.

A crude example would be a speculator who lent langston/Sam 5mil at 20% interest on the strength of those loan notes would this morning be looking at a million pound profit as well as his 5ml back.

After yesterday's announcement can anyone recall the argument on this board in feb 2012 where steve borley told carl curtis the langston loan notes " were not worth a tripe supper" ?

Tripe must have just shot up in value.

Anyone recall a bid for a Celtic player of around 10mill, everyone can bring snippets back from the past but what is the point

After yesterday's announcement can anyone recall the argument on this board in feb 2012 where steve borley told carl curtis the langston loan notes " were not worth a tripe supper" ?

Tripe must have just shot up in value.

I think people missed the point. steve wasent saying the loan notes were worthless he was saying that langston could not borrow money against them security wise.
In other words no bank or financial institution would accept them as security or a guarantee against a loan wishing to be taken out by langston

Why wouldn't an investor loan money against them? Tan called in forensic accountants, barristers etc and found the deal watertight, as proved by yesterday's events.

A crude example would be a speculator who lent langston/Sam 5mil at 20% interest on the strength of those loan notes would this morning be looking at a million pound profit as well as his 5ml back.

makes me wonder if everything was watertight why sam dident take out a loan against the notes and pursue the club through the courts for his full settlement of which was allegedly 34 million if you believed some of the figures posted on this board.

After yesterday's announcement can anyone recall the argument on this board in feb 2012 where steve borley told carl curtis the langston loan notes " were not worth a tripe supper" ?

Tripe must have just shot up in value.

Anyone recall a bid for a Celtic player of around 10mill, everyone can bring snippets back from the past but what is the point

I'm not sticking up for carl curtis,i don't know the man and i have never replied to one of his updates/posts. I just find it interesting that a Ccfc director could "apparently?" get it so wrong.

After yesterday's announcement can anyone recall the argument on this board in feb 2012 where steve borley told carl curtis the langston loan notes " were not worth a tripe supper" ?

Tripe must have just shot up in value.

Anyone recall a bid for a Celtic player of around 10mill, everyone can bring snippets back from the past but what is the point

I'm not sticking up for carl curtis,i don't know the man and i have never replied to one of his updates/posts. I just find it interesting that a Ccfc director could "apparently?" get it so wrong.

Not sticking up for Carl, read your post again in fact why post it if you are not, or maybe you don't like Steve Borley a City fan who has put his own money into the club to keep it going in hard times. Can't see the point of your post if your not sticking up for Carl

After yesterday's announcement can anyone recall the argument on this board in feb 2012 where steve borley told carl curtis the langston loan notes " were not worth a tripe supper" ?

Tripe must have just shot up in value.

You will need to do better than that to get into the inner circle

After yesterday's announcement can anyone recall the argument on this board in feb 2012 where steve borley told carl curtis the langston loan notes " were not worth a tripe supper" ?

Tripe must have just shot up in value.

You will need to do better than that to get into the inner circle

But i just bought a box of ice creams? And there minted.

After yesterday's announcement can anyone recall the argument on this board in feb 2012 where steve borley told carl curtis the langston loan notes " were not worth a tripe supper" ?

Tripe must have just shot up in value.

I think people missed the point. steve wasent saying the loan notes were worthless he was saying that langston could not borrow money against them security wise.
In other words no bank or financial institution would accept them as security or a guarantee against a loan wishing to be taken out by langston

Why wouldn't an investor loan money against them? Tan called in forensic accountants, barristers etc and found the deal watertight, as proved by yesterday's events.

A crude example would be a speculator who lent langston/Sam 5mil at 20% interest on the strength of those loan notes would this morning be looking at a million pound profit as well as his 5ml back.

Are you mad?? Watertight? - The alleged debt would have been more like £32m by 2016. Are you really
suggesting that Hammam has written off £17m by choice, for the sake of two years? what do you think, he
had an electric bill needed paying?

The High Court Judge actually said that in a full hearing he had no doubt that Sam Hammam would be found
to be THE driving force behind Langstone. The legal implications of that would be pretty serious.

Hammam has cut and run here. Honorary Life President?? The tea lady will be in that Boardroom more
than that odious little liar. Game, set and match Cardiff City!!

makes me wonder if everything was watertight why sam dident take out a loan against the notes and pursue the club through the courts for his full settlement of which was allegedly 34 million if you believed some of the figures posted on this board.

TBH Steve you could turn that argument on its head and say that if the Loan Notes were so worthless then why pay £15m to settle them?

As usual the answer is somewhere in the middle. SH/Langston were owed a legally binding debt it was only the value of that debt which was really in dispute.

Personally I have always thought that if SH/Langston had taken CCFC to court they would have won, but probably the amount owed would have been reduced to around the £15m i.e. the settlement figure.

The big untold story here is that both sides sat down and thrashed out an agreement without the need of a High Court Judge. Well done to both sides.

After yesterday's announcement can anyone recall the argument on this board in feb 2012 where steve borley told carl curtis the langston loan notes " were not worth a tripe supper" ?

Tripe must have just shot up in value.

I think people missed the point. steve wasent saying the loan notes were worthless he was saying that langston could not borrow money against them security wise.
In other words no bank or financial institution would accept them as security or a guarantee against a loan wishing to be taken out by langston

Why wouldn't an investor loan money against them? Tan called in forensic accountants, barristers etc and found the deal watertight, as proved by yesterday's events.

A crude example would be a speculator who lent langston/Sam 5mil at 20% interest on the strength of those loan notes would this morning be looking at a million pound profit as well as his 5ml back.

Are you mad?? Watertight? - The alleged debt would have been more like £32m by 2016. Are you really
suggesting that Hammam has written off £17m by choice, for the sake of two years? what do you think, he
had an electric bill needed paying?

The High Court Judge actually said that in a full hearing he had no doubt that Sam Hammam would be found
to be THE driving force behind Langstone. The legal implications of that would be pretty serious.

Hammam has cut and run here. Honorary Life President?? The tea lady will be in that Boardroom more
than that odious little liar. Game, set and match Cardiff City!!

It turned out to be watertight because he got paid.

I'm not sure where you buy your tripe, but if you think paying 10 or 15 million quid for it is normal i suggest you find another butcher.

After yesterday's announcement can anyone recall the argument on this board in feb 2012 where steve borley told carl curtis the langston loan notes " were not worth a tripe supper" ?

Tripe must have just shot up in value.

I think people missed the point. steve wasent saying the loan notes were worthless he was saying that langston could not borrow money against them security wise.
In other words no bank or financial institution would accept them as security or a guarantee against a loan wishing to be taken out by langston

Why wouldn't an investor loan money against them? Tan called in forensic accountants, barristers etc and found the deal watertight, as proved by yesterday's events.

A crude example would be a speculator who lent langston/Sam 5mil at 20% interest on the strength of those loan notes would this morning be looking at a million pound profit as well as his 5ml back.

Are you mad?? Watertight? - The alleged debt would have been more like £32m by 2016. Are you really
suggesting that Hammam has written off £17m by choice, for the sake of two years? what do you think, he
had an electric bill needed paying?

The High Court Judge actually said that in a full hearing he had no doubt that Sam Hammam would be found
to be THE driving force behind Langstone. The legal implications of that would be pretty serious.

Hammam has cut and run here. Honorary Life President?? The tea lady will be in that Boardroom more
than that odious little liar. Game, set and match Cardiff City!!

It turned out to be watertight because he got paid.

I'm not sure where you buy your tripe, but if you think paying 10 or 15 million quid for it is normal i suggest you find another butcher.

If the tripe was worth 30mil +, why would you sell it for less?, that's not good business

makes me wonder if everything was watertight why sam dident take out a loan against the notes and pursue the club through the courts for his full settlement of which was allegedly 34 million if you believed some of the figures posted on this board.

TBH Steve you could turn that argument on its head and say that if the Loan Notes were so worthless then why pay £15m to settle them?

As usual the answer is somewhere in the middle. SH/Langston were owed a legally binding debt it was only the value of that debt which was really in dispute.

Personally I have always thought that if SH/Langston had taken CCFC to court they would have won, but probably the amount owed would have been reduced to around the £15m i.e. the settlement figure.

The big untold story here is that both sides sat down and thrashed out an agreement without the need of a High Court Judge. Well done to both sides.

Tony
Never at any time have I said the loan notes were worthless I was just saying I don't think any financial institute would have accepted them as security against a loan taken out by langston

makes me wonder if everything was watertight why sam dident take out a loan against the notes and pursue the club through the courts for his full settlement of which was allegedly 34 million if you believed some of the figures posted on this board.

TBH Steve you could turn that argument on its head and say that if the Loan Notes were so worthless then why pay £15m to settle them?

As usual the answer is somewhere in the middle. SH/Langston were owed a legally binding debt it was only the value of that debt which was really in dispute.

Personally I have always thought that if SH/Langston had taken CCFC to court they would have won, but probably the amount owed would have been reduced to around the £15m i.e. the settlement figure.

The big untold story here is that both sides sat down and thrashed out an agreement without the need of a High Court Judge. Well done to both sides.

Tony
Never at any time have I said the loan notes were worthless I was just saying I don't think any financial institute would have accepted them as security against a loan taken out by langston

And like you I believe that is what Steve Borley was implying

What a surprise, a post being critical of Borley (even when it's taken totally out of context) is made a sticky.

What a surprise, a post being critical of Borley (even when it's taken totally out of context) is made a sticky.

How is it being taken out of context? Steve borley stated last year the langston loan notes were " not worth a tripe supper" it's plainly obvious from yesterday's events he was wrong, if tan thought they were " not worth a tripe supper" he would not have sanctioned a deal worth approx 15 mil quid to langston.

What a surprise, a post being critical of Borley (even when it's taken totally out of context) is made a sticky.

How is it being taken out of context? Steve borley stated last year the langston loan notes were " not worth a tripe supper" it's plainly obvious from yesterday's events he was wrong, if tan thought they were " not worth a tripe supper" he would not have sanctioned a deal worth approx 15 mil quid to langston.

What are you trying to gain by harping on about this, sam excepted 15mil half of what he was owed "so we have been told",
that is a lit to give away for the sake of waiting two years. So there is a bit more in this that any of us know

makes me wonder if everything was watertight why sam dident take out a loan against the notes and pursue the club through the courts for his full settlement of which was allegedly 34 million if you believed some of the figures posted on this board.

TBH Steve you could turn that argument on its head and say that if the Loan Notes were so worthless then why pay £15m to settle them?

As usual the answer is somewhere in the middle. SH/Langston were owed a legally binding debt it was only the value of that debt which was really in dispute.

Personally I have always thought that if SH/Langston had taken CCFC to court they would have won, but probably the amount owed would have been reduced to around the £15m i.e. the settlement figure.

The big untold story here is that both sides sat down and thrashed out an agreement without the need of a High Court Judge. Well done to both sides.

Tony
Never at any time have I said the loan notes were worthless I was just saying I don't think any financial institute would have accepted them as security against a loan taken out by langston

Fair enough and I agree that there is no way any financial institution would have accepted the loan notes as security. Of course if I'm wrong I'd like to know which bank or whatever would have given Sam a loan on that basis as I need a loan and can offer back issues of the thin blue line as security

After yesterday's announcement can anyone recall the argument on this board in feb 2012 where steve borley told carl curtis the langston loan notes " were not worth a tripe supper" ?

Tripe must have just shot up in value.

I think people missed the point. steve wasent saying the loan notes were worthless he was saying that langston could not borrow money against them security wise.
In other words no bank or financial institution would accept them as security or a guarantee against a loan wishing to be taken out by langston

Why wouldn't an investor loan money against them? Tan called in forensic accountants, barristers etc and found the deal watertight, as proved by yesterday's events.

A crude example would be a speculator who lent langston/Sam 5mil at 20% interest on the strength of those loan notes would this morning be looking at a million pound profit as well as his 5ml back.

Are you mad?? Watertight? - The alleged debt would have been more like £32m by 2016. Are you really
suggesting that Hammam has written off £17m by choice, for the sake of two years? what do you think, he
had an electric bill needed paying?

The High Court Judge actually said that in a full hearing he had no doubt that Sam Hammam would be found
to be THE driving force behind Langstone. The legal implications of that would be pretty serious.

Hammam has cut and run here. Honorary Life President?? The tea lady will be in that Boardroom more
than that odious little liar. Game, set and match Cardiff City!!

It turned out to be watertight because he got paid.

I'm not sure where you buy your tripe, but if you think paying 10 or 15 million quid for it is normal i suggest you find another butcher.

I love the new line by the disciples - change of tactic - That everyone was saying Hammam would get
nothing - NOBODY was saying that - What everyone said was that Sam Hammam would not risk this
going back to the High Court, and would NEVER see the full amount. Because Langston was as shady
as f**k. Sam was in it up to his neck, the High Court Judge pretty much stated that much.

Sam was only a ''representative'' of Langston

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that his ''employers'' told him to settle for less than half of a £32m debt
when that debt was perfectly legitimate and above board?

Doesnt add up does it

Just wait for the threads that Sam settled for lesswas because
He loved the city so much,and we are his family.
He is a crook plain and simple

I love the new line by the disciples - change of tactic - That everyone was saying Hammam would get
nothing - NOBODY was saying that - What everyone said was that Sam Hammam would not risk this
going back to the High Court, and would NEVER see the full amount. Because Langston was as shady
as f**k. Sam was in it up to his neck, the High Court Judge pretty much stated that much.

Sam was only a ''representative'' of Langston

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that his ''employers'' told him to settle for less than half of a £32m debt
when that debt was perfectly legitimate and above board?

Doesnt add up does it

I can remember numerous threads on this issue, some claiming Sam was owed £32m and some claiming he would get nothing. Not sure where you were looking but there have been many threads on this over the years.

The High Court Judge never said any such thing about Sam Hammam. I have read the Judgement (which is a public document) many times and there is no reference whatsoever to him being "shady" or being "up to his neck"

Sam did lose the Summary Hearing but as anyone in the legal industry will tell you that is far from unusual and to be honest it is the norm. However, it severed to fire a shot across the bow of the club which ultimately 5 years later it has brought about a resolution.

The only winner today is CCFC as the club is now well on its way to being debt free. Silly jibes by either side is not helpful and its time to draw a line under the matter.

Just wait for the threads that Sam settled for lesswas because
He loved the city so much,and we are his family.
He is a crook plain and simple

He probably settled because it was the best deal he could possibly get i.e. £15m or nothing. That said there is absolutely no evidence Sam Hammam is a crook, otherwise he would be residing at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

All I can say is I am finally glad its all over and Our Club and us fans can move on, but what it does say and show that Langston did have a case all along as other wise £15 mill,plus shares, plus Sam having his own Directors joining the board.
Bit by bit over this coming season the whole truth will come out once and for all.

What is great is that both Tan and Sam get on really well, they have had over 20 odd private meetings and plenty of time out away from the club and other staff members etc.

Just wait for the threads that Sam settled for lesswas because
He loved the city so much,and we are his family.
He is a crook plain and simple

He probably settled because it was the best deal he could possibly get i.e. £15m or nothing. That said there is absolutely no evidence Sam Hammam is a crook, otherwise he would be residing at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

Or nothing?? Surely SH had a legally binding contract that the loan notes would be paid in full in 2016? No one knows what the settlement is, it's just supposition at the moment that its £15 million? I would thnk that VT has offered cash plus equity that results in something around the full amount of the loan notes which was originally £24 million? SH takes a hit on the full cash amount as he now gets equity in a club that is actually worth something and gets some of his cash back earlier rather than later and VT gets the debt of the books and pays out less cash up front, it ain't rocket science!
Going back to the point about Borley, unfortunately although he is a respected member of the board of directors, he sometimes acts like some if the less intelligent pissed up posters on here and let's his mouth run away before engaging his brain! But ain't that what we love about him?