" VINCENT TANS COURT CASE "

" VINCENT TANS COURT CASE "

Langston v Cardiff City/ Vincent Tan


The case is due to be heard in late January/early February 2016.

The case is for the remaining payment of the settlement of the loan notes which were agreed and signed by Vincent Tan personally.
Payment stopped in January 2015 and almost £16 million had already been paid.
Just over £6 million is still owing.

Every case that has got to court or nearly got to court regarding Tan and City has always resulted in Tan paying out.

This is going to be very interesting as Langston do not appear to be backing down one bit and it was them who brought this case to court and would rather have had just Tans name on the case.

I have strong feelings that Tan will finally settle this as he has already wasted over £1million in legal fees.

Does Tan want to lose anymore money than he needs to?

Personally I just want this finally over as I can see Tan using this in Jan/Feb for the club not going forward and to me this is nonsense.

For the good of Cardiff City this needs to be finally finished

No he wont I will

No doubt the cost of this case to Tan will be added to the debt owed by the club.

Would prefer a million pound was spent on some uninjured players.

No he wont I will

Dam

Normal service resumed!

" VINCENT TANS COURT CASE "

Langston v Cardiff City/ Vincent Tan


The case is due to be heard in late January/early February 2016.

The case is for the remaining payment of the settlement of the loan notes which were agreed and signed by Vincent Tan personally.
Payment stopped in January 2015 and almost £16 million had already been paid.
Just over £6 million is still owing.

Every case that has got to court or nearly got to court regarding Tan and City has always resulted in Tan paying out.

This is going to be very interesting as Langston do not appear to be backing down one bit and it was them who brought this case to court and would rather have had just Tans name on the case.

I have strong feelings that Tan will finally settle this as he has already wasted over £1million in legal fees.

Does Tan want to lose anymore money than he needs to?

Personally I just want this finally over as I can see Tan using this in Jan/Feb for the club not going forward and to me this is nonsense.

For the good of Cardiff City this needs to be finally finished

Annis

I believe this to be an unnecessary and costly decision on the part of the club to stop making the payments to Langston/ Sam even though the club directors have said that the money is payable. The only reasons they have given for not paying are they are not happy with providing information to Sam's representative on the board (which as a director he is entitled to ask for and receive) and they do not know who the full beneficial owners of Langston are.

As you are well aware I often disagree with Sam in my chats with him ( not as often as I disagree with you mind ) so I am hardly going to support him where I think he is in the wrong but in this case it is the club which is in the wrong.

The club falls down in its argument about the debt not being payable (and will almost certainly lose the case at a big financial cost which Vincent Tan will not bear but which will just be added to the club's debt burden) because it has admitted the debt is payable in meetings and in the audited accounts on more than one occasion.

The club falls down in its argument that they don't know who Langston are on at least two counts ( even though I believe that Sam should clarify this point)
1) they have never asked this before even when entering into agreements and amendments to those agreements over a long period of time
2) they never have seemed to be bothered to get similar clarification from either Erskine Finance or Edgedale International whose full ownership details remained unknown but unquestioned but still the club was willing to give them charges over the club's assets and subsequently pay them off in full. Double standards in my opinion just because Vincent Tan has a link to those companies but not Langston.

The club are trying very hard with their current charm offensive with current fans ( I am less clear what they are trying to do to bring back or replace the thousands who have walked away in disillusionment with the club) but will continue to make wrong and costly decisions for as long as they feel obliged to give the owner the answers and actions he demands whether or not it is in the best interests of the club.

Keith

Keith,

I accept that my view will always be considered as biased when it comes to Sam but to have someone like yourself make comment like you have will hopefully let others see the wrong in what has happened.

Keith,

I accept that my view will always be considered as biased when it comes to Sam but to have someone like yourself make comment like you have will hopefully let others see the wrong in what has happened.

Carl

You know full well that when I was of the view in the past that Sam was telling you a load of bollocks about what was set out in his agreements with the club just to get some publicity for his cause on this messageboard I said so to him, you and Annis at the time.We all got into some heated arguments over it at the time when I supported the club's views .So I don't believe anyone can accuse me of being biased towards either side.

In the current case I believe that the club are entirely wrong and are making wrong and expensive decisions for the reasons set out in my earlier post.

Keith

Keith,

I accept that my view will always be considered as biased when it comes to Sam but to have someone like yourself make comment like you have will hopefully let others see the wrong in what has happened.

Carl

You know full well that when I was of the view in the past that Sam was telling you a load of bollocks about what was set out in his agreements with the club just to get some publicity for his cause on this messageboard I said so to him, you and Annis at the time.We all got into some heated arguments over it at the time when I supported the club's views .So I don't believe anyone can accuse me of being biased towards either side.

In the current case I believe that the club are entirely wrong and are making wrong and expensive decisions for the reasons set out in my earlier post.

Keith

Keith,

Absolutely, nobody could ever accuse you of having an agenda regarding this particular subject, you have had strong views which have often been very different to Annis' and mine but the club's position is certainly one that is wrong in what they (Vincent Tan) are now trying to do.

They entered a legally binding agreement and have since asked for more information after paying the majority of the settlement figure.

" VINCENT TANS COURT CASE "

Langston v Cardiff City/ Vincent Tan


The case is due to be heard in late January/early February 2016.

The case is for the remaining payment of the settlement of the loan notes which were agreed and signed by Vincent Tan personally.
Payment stopped in January 2015 and almost £16 million had already been paid.
Just over £6 million is still owing.

Every case that has got to court or nearly got to court regarding Tan and City has always resulted in Tan paying out.

This is going to be very interesting as Langston do not appear to be backing down one bit and it was them who brought this case to court and would rather have had just Tans name on the case.

I have strong feelings that Tan will finally settle this as he has already wasted over £1million in legal fees.

Does Tan want to lose anymore money than he needs to?

Personally I just want this finally over as I can see Tan using this in Jan/Feb for the club not going forward and to me this is nonsense.

For the good of Cardiff City this needs to be finally finished

Annis

I believe this to be an unnecessary and costly decision on the part of the club to stop making the payments to Langston/ Sam even though the club directors have said that the money is payable. The only reasons they have given for not paying are they are not happy with providing information to Sam's representative on the board (which as a director he is entitled to ask for and receive) and they do not know who the full beneficial owners of Langston are.

As you are well aware I often disagree with Sam in my chats with him ( not as often as I disagree with you mind ) so I am hardly going to support him where I think he is in the wrong but in this case it is the club which is in the wrong.

The club falls down in its argument about the debt not being payable (and will almost certainly lose the case at a big financial cost which Vincent Tan will not bear but which will just be added to the club's debt burden) because it has admitted the debt is payable in meetings and in the audited accounts on more than one occasion.

The club falls down in its argument that they don't know who Langston are on at least two counts ( even though I believe that Sam should clarify this point)
1) they have never asked this before even when entering into agreements and amendments to those agreements over a long period of time
2) they never have seemed to be bothered to get similar clarification from either Erskine Finance or Edgedale International whose full ownership details remained unknown but unquestioned but still the club was willing to give them charges over the club's assets and subsequently pay them off in full. Double standards in my opinion just because Vincent Tan has a link to those companies but not Langston.

The club are trying very hard with their current charm offensive with current fans ( I am less clear what they are trying to do to bring back or replace the thousands who have walked away in disillusionment with the club) but will continue to make wrong and costly decisions for as long as they feel obliged to give the owner the answers and actions he demands whether or not it is in the best interests of the club.

Keith

Keith.

We are in agreement

" VINCENT TANS COURT CASE "

Langston v Cardiff City/ Vincent Tan


The case is due to be heard in late January/early February 2016.

The case is for the remaining payment of the settlement of the loan notes which were agreed and signed by Vincent Tan personally.
Payment stopped in January 2015 and almost £16 million had already been paid.
Just over £6 million is still owing.

Every case that has got to court or nearly got to court regarding Tan and City has always resulted in Tan paying out.

This is going to be very interesting as Langston do not appear to be backing down one bit and it was them who brought this case to court and would rather have had just Tans name on the case.

I have strong feelings that Tan will finally settle this as he has already wasted over £1million in legal fees.

Does Tan want to lose anymore money than he needs to?

Personally I just want this finally over as I can see Tan using this in Jan/Feb for the club not going forward and to me this is nonsense.

For the good of Cardiff City this needs to be finally finished

Annis

I believe this to be an unnecessary and costly decision on the part of the club to stop making the payments to Langston/ Sam even though the club directors have said that the money is payable. The only reasons they have given for not paying are they are not happy with providing information to Sam's representative on the board (which as a director he is entitled to ask for and receive) and they do not know who the full beneficial owners of Langston are.

As you are well aware I often disagree with Sam in my chats with him ( not as often as I disagree with you mind ) so I am hardly going to support him where I think he is in the wrong but in this case it is the club which is in the wrong.

The club falls down in its argument about the debt not being payable (and will almost certainly lose the case at a big financial cost which Vincent Tan will not bear but which will just be added to the club's debt burden) because it has admitted the debt is payable in meetings and in the audited accounts on more than one occasion.

The club falls down in its argument that they don't know who Langston are on at least two counts ( even though I believe that Sam should clarify this point)
1) they have never asked this before even when entering into agreements and amendments to those agreements over a long period of time
2) they never have seemed to be bothered to get similar clarification from either Erskine Finance or Edgedale International whose full ownership details remained unknown but unquestioned but still the club was willing to give them charges over the club's assets and subsequently pay them off in full. Double standards in my opinion just because Vincent Tan has a link to those companies but not Langston.

The club are trying very hard with their current charm offensive with current fans ( I am less clear what they are trying to do to bring back or replace the thousands who have walked away in disillusionment with the club) but will continue to make wrong and costly decisions for as long as they feel obliged to give the owner the answers and actions he demands whether or not it is in the best interests of the club.

Keith

Do you think that Tan may be using this as a way out. If Sam doesn't get paid the club gets liquidated Tan may not have to pay the debt other than any amounts he has personally guaranteed and Sam becomes a hate figure and the villain and Tan walks away looking good.

" VINCENT TANS COURT CASE "

Langston v Cardiff City/ Vincent Tan


The case is due to be heard in late January/early February 2016.

The case is for the remaining payment of the settlement of the loan notes which were agreed and signed by Vincent Tan personally.
Payment stopped in January 2015 and almost £16 million had already been paid.
Just over £6 million is still owing.

Every case that has got to court or nearly got to court regarding Tan and City has always resulted in Tan paying out.

This is going to be very interesting as Langston do not appear to be backing down one bit and it was them who brought this case to court and would rather have had just Tans name on the case.

I have strong feelings that Tan will finally settle this as he has already wasted over £1million in legal fees.

Does Tan want to lose anymore money than he needs to?

Personally I just want this finally over as I can see Tan using this in Jan/Feb for the club not going forward and to me this is nonsense.

For the good of Cardiff City this needs to be finally finished

Annis

I believe this to be an unnecessary and costly decision on the part of the club to stop making the payments to Langston/ Sam even though the club directors have said that the money is payable. The only reasons they have given for not paying are they are not happy with providing information to Sam's representative on the board (which as a director he is entitled to ask for and receive) and they do not know who the full beneficial owners of Langston are.

As you are well aware I often disagree with Sam in my chats with him ( not as often as I disagree with you mind ) so I am hardly going to support him where I think he is in the wrong but in this case it is the club which is in the wrong.

The club falls down in its argument about the debt not being payable (and will almost certainly lose the case at a big financial cost which Vincent Tan will not bear but which will just be added to the club's debt burden) because it has admitted the debt is payable in meetings and in the audited accounts on more than one occasion.

The club falls down in its argument that they don't know who Langston are on at least two counts ( even though I believe that Sam should clarify this point)
1) they have never asked this before even when entering into agreements and amendments to those agreements over a long period of time
2) they never have seemed to be bothered to get similar clarification from either Erskine Finance or Edgedale International whose full ownership details remained unknown but unquestioned but still the club was willing to give them charges over the club's assets and subsequently pay them off in full. Double standards in my opinion just because Vincent Tan has a link to those companies but not Langston.

The club are trying very hard with their current charm offensive with current fans ( I am less clear what they are trying to do to bring back or replace the thousands who have walked away in disillusionment with the club) but will continue to make wrong and costly decisions for as long as they feel obliged to give the owner the answers and actions he demands whether or not it is in the best interests of the club.

Keith

Do you think that Tan may be using this as a way out. If Sam doesn't get paid the club gets liquidated Tan may not have to pay the debt other than any amounts he has personally guaranteed and Sam becomes a hate figure and the villain and Tan walks away looking good.

I believe that Vincent Tan has personally guaranteed the Langston debt.

If the club were to be liquidated Mr Tan would very little of the money that he has loaned the club back.Even in an Administration,under the new Football League insolvency rules he would struggle to get the majority of his money back and would also struggle with the concept of not having any control over the running of the club or who it would be sold to.

Either of the above would also carry a real risk of wrongful trading and/or disqualification actions against the directors (including himself as a shadow director).

So I believe allowing the club to be liquidated or entering Administration would be the last thing Mr Tan would want.