what are the real implications of not doing a langston

deal,are we talking court,or the £20 odd million by 2013,(im not to sure of exact date or figures)

Ive been wondering about this myself.

The Langston debt is owed by Cardiff City FC and not VT/TG (i.e. shareholders) and this could be a very relevant point especially if CCFC cannot afford to repay the debt themselves.

In order for CCFC to repay the debt it would require Capital Investment by a shareholder who in turn would receive shares for the money invested. Now, what if, £7m was not enough to take an investment over 51% of the overall shareholding. Would it be worth doing? What if some present shareholders did not want certain other shareholders to reach 51%?

On the other hand......

If the liability/debt then went up to £20m and a shareholder chose to invest £20m into the CCFC (in return for shares) this would then, almost certainly, take them above the 51% shareholding whilst at the same time allowing the club to pay off Langston.

Langston debt is then gone. Shareholder is then the majority shareholder and can enforce the purchase of other shares "cheaply" should they wish.

Im just thinking outside of the box - but there must be a very good reason not to pay now.

Ive been wondering about this myself.

The Langston debt is owed by Cardiff City FC and not VT/TG (i.e. shareholders) and this could be a very relevant point especially if CCFC cannot afford to repay the debt themselves.

In order for CCFC to repay the debt it would require Capital Investment by a shareholder who in turn would receive shares for the money invested. Now, what if, £7m was not enough to take an investment over 51% of the overall shareholding. Would it be worth doing? What if some present shareholders did not want certain other shareholders to reach 51%?

On the other hand......

If the liability/debt then went up to £20m and a shareholder chose to invest £20m into the CCFC (in return for shares) this would then, almost certainly, take them above the 51% shareholding whilst at the same time allowing the club to pay off Langston.

Langston debt is then gone. Shareholder is then the majority shareholder and can enforce the purchase of other shares "cheaply" should they wish.

Im just thinking outside of the box - but there must be a very good reason not to pay now.

your last line sums it up for me

Ive been wondering about this myself.

The Langston debt is owed by Cardiff City FC and not VT/TG (i.e. shareholders) and this could be a very relevant point especially if CCFC cannot afford to repay the debt themselves.

In order for CCFC to repay the debt it would require Capital Investment by a shareholder who in turn would receive shares for the money invested. Now, what if, £7m was not enough to take an investment over 51% of the overall shareholding. Would it be worth doing? What if some present shareholders did not want certain other shareholders to reach 51%?

On the other hand......

If the liability/debt then went up to £20m and a shareholder chose to invest £20m into the CCFC (in return for shares) this would then, almost certainly, take them above the 51% shareholding whilst at the same time allowing the club to pay off Langston.

Langston debt is then gone. Shareholder is then the majority shareholder and can enforce the purchase of other shares "cheaply" should they wish.

Im just thinking outside of the box - but there must be a very good reason not to pay now.

VT already has something like £10m of secured loans in the club, if he wanted to take a 51% holding then he could just convert some of that. I think they are just not paying him because right now they dont have to.

Ive been wondering about this myself.

The Langston debt is owed by Cardiff City FC and not VT/TG (i.e. shareholders) and this could be a very relevant point especially if CCFC cannot afford to repay the debt themselves.

In order for CCFC to repay the debt it would require Capital Investment by a shareholder who in turn would receive shares for the money invested. Now, what if, £7m was not enough to take an investment over 51% of the overall shareholding. Would it be worth doing? What if some present shareholders did not want certain other shareholders to reach 51%?

On the other hand......

If the liability/debt then went up to £20m and a shareholder chose to invest £20m into the CCFC (in return for shares) this would then, almost certainly, take them above the 51% shareholding whilst at the same time allowing the club to pay off Langston.

Langston debt is then gone. Shareholder is then the majority shareholder and can enforce the purchase of other shares "cheaply" should they wish.

Im just thinking outside of the box - but there must be a very good reason not to pay now.

VT already has something like £10m of secured loans in the club, if he wanted to take a 51% holding then he could just convert some of that. I think they are just not paying him because right now they dont have to.

but doesnt this debt double in 2 days time

but doesnt this debt double in 2 days time [/quote]

Who knows for sure. Some documents have been shown that says it does, but with this one who knows whether they are the legally lodged ones. In truth though it doesnt matter, if the debt is £10, £20 or £50m. Its unsecured and therefore given the other debts which rank before it -VT -£10m+, PMG £6-7m, Ranson up to £3m, and lack of saleable assets (players less than £10m and thats it really).. then Sam is unlikely to get anything substantial if he wins his (costly) court case at whoch point the club will be insolvent and go into administration.

Lets hope it never comes to that and something can be worked out.

but doesnt this debt double in 2 days time

Who knows for sure. Some documents have been shown that says it does, but with this one who knows whether they are the legally lodged ones. In truth though it doesnt matter, if the debt is £10, £20 or £50m. Its unsecured and therefore given the other debts which rank before it -VT -£10m+, PMG £6-7m, Ranson up to £3m, and lack of saleable assets (players less than £10m and thats it really).. then Sam is unlikely to get anything substantial if he wins his (costly) court case at whoch point the club will be insolvent and go into administration.

Lets hope it never comes to that and something can be worked out.[/quote]
thankyou,and totally agree on your last statement