Tan v Hammam - merky business.

We all know Sam Hammam is Langston, so why did Tan come to an agreement to pay off the money owed to him, pay £15m up front, then one instalment, then suddenly say that they won't pay anymore until they know who they are paying. They were happy to pay him all the rest of the money without supposedly knowing, what's changed.

As for Hammam, if he wants his money back why does he not come clean, tell us all what we already know, then Tan will have no excuses but to pay him.

Skullduggery isn't it, nice and tasty like.

We all may THINK we know Sam is Langston but if he admits it there are certain loans, deals and financial arrangements between the club and Langston that could be deemed illegal as Sam was in control of both entities.

We all may THINK we know Sam is Langston but if he admits it there are certain loans, deals and financial arrangements between the club and Langston that could be deemed illegal as Sam was in control of both entities.

Spot on ! This is why Sam will avoid open court at all costs !

We all may THINK we know Sam is Langston but if he admits it there are certain loans, deals and financial arrangements between the club and Langston that could be deemed illegal as Sam was in control of both entities.

So in effect loaning himself money, in much the same way as tan is?
Also why did tan come to the agreement and paid of £16m before changing his mind.

Last edited by harold pinta on Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

We all may THINK we know Sam is Langston but if he admits it there are certain loans, deals and financial arrangements between the club and Langston that could be deemed illegal as Sam was in control of both entities.

So in effect loaning himself money, in much the same way as tan is?

The difference being that the board know Tan is loaning the club money whereas, if this is true, the board in Sam's time thought a separate entity was loaning the club money.

We all may THINK we know Sam is Langston but if he admits it there are certain loans, deals and financial arrangements between the club and Langston that could be deemed illegal as Sam was in control of both entities.

- - Ditto - -. Certainly a conflict of interest.

We all may THINK we know Sam is Langston but if he admits it there are certain loans, deals and financial arrangements between the club and Langston that could be deemed illegal as Sam was in control of both entities.

This sounds good to me.Does anybody know the law surrounding this,I wouldn't have thought you can lend money to yourself.

We all may THINK we know Sam is Langston but if he admits it there are certain loans, deals and financial arrangements between the club and Langston that could be deemed illegal as Sam was in control of both entities.

This sounds good to me.Does anybody know the law surrounding this,I wouldn't have thought you can lend money to yourself.

Still begs the question, and bearing in mind Tans ordering the forensic accountants in, if it really were something as simple as that then why pay the £16m? Why not refuse to pay in the first place. Seems to me something has changed. Around about the same time the rebrand was reversed I believe.

We all may THINK we know Sam is Langston but if he admits it there are certain loans, deals and financial arrangements between the club and Langston that could be deemed illegal as Sam was in control of both entities.

This sounds good to me.Does anybody know the law surrounding this,I wouldn't have thought you can lend money to yourself.

Legally , it is not lending money to yourself as Langston and Cardiff City Football Club are two seperate legal entities , not the same "person" in law. However , transactions between such parties are regarded as "connected party transactions" and should be disclosed in the accounts notes.

Vincent Tan lent money to the club , both personally and through companies in which he had an interest ( Edgedale International Limited and Erskine Finance Limited) disclosed in the accounts as did Mehmet Dalman through a company in which he has an interest Torman Finance Inc.

What is interesting is that both Edgedale and Erskine were given security for their loans over the club assets and have since been paid off in full. Yet , if you were to ask the likes of Steve Borley or Michael Isaac the exact details of ownership of those companies (and possibly Torman as well) they would not be able to tell you as they have the same "shadowy" (but perfectly legal) ownership through a series of offshore companies that Langston has. Giving them a charge over the assets and paying them doesn`t seem to have presented the board of directors with the same issue they are now claiming is the barrier to them paying Langston. For this reason , having spoken to a number of lawyers on the issue , I believe the directors may have some problem in winning in court against Langston.

You don't get rich in this world without doing a few shady deals. I think we all know, no matter what side of the fence you're on in all this, that every party involved has used this club as a financial f**k jar at one point or another.

We all may THINK we know Sam is Langston but if he admits it there are certain loans, deals and financial arrangements between the club and Langston that could be deemed illegal as Sam was in control of both entities.

This sounds good to me.Does anybody know the law surrounding this,I wouldn't have thought you can lend money to yourself.

Legally , it is not lending money to yourself as Langston and Cardiff City Football Club are two seperate legal entities , not the same "person" in law. However , transactions between such parties are regarded as "connected party transactions" and should be disclosed in the accounts notes.

Vincent Tan lent money to the club , both personally and through companies in which he had an interest ( Edgedale International Limited and Erskine Finance Limited) disclosed in the accounts as did Mehmet Dalman through a company in which he has an interest Torman Finance Inc.

What is interesting is that both Edgedale and Erskine were given security for their loans over the club assets and have since been paid off in full. Yet , if you were to ask the likes of Steve Borley or Michael Isaac the exact details of ownership of those companies (and possibly Torman as well) they would not be able to tell you as they have the same "shadowy" (but perfectly legal) ownership through a series of offshore companies that Langston has. Giving them a charge over the assets and paying them doesn`t seem to have presented the board of directors with the same issue they are now claiming is the barrier to them paying Langston. For this reason , having spoken to a number of lawyers on the issue , I believe the directors may have some problem in winning in court against Langston.

Thanks for the reply since62.I was rather thinking though that there might be something amiss with langstone and Sam.Maybe it wasn't done in the correct way.Just musing.

The sooner people understand and realise that legally a person and a company are two separate things legally then many more would have a better understanding of things. Legally Sam cannot be Langstone just like Tan cannot be CCFC

The sooner people understand and realise that legally a person and a company are two separate things legally then many more would have a better understanding of things. Legally Sam cannot be Langstone just like Tan cannot be CCFC

On that occasion Mr Justice Briggs stated that, in effect, "Hammam was Langston" ......