" OUR CEO CONFIRMS THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT WITH LANGSTON "

" OUR CHIEF EXECUTIVE CONFIRMS THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT WITH LANGSTON "

Carl/Gwyn and Myself Told Everyone through out last year that The LANGSTON DEBT WAS TO BE PAID BY DECEMBER 31st 2010 and that was was All agreed/Signed and Also All previous Agreements were Null and Void.
We got Slaughtered by Certain People and Ridiculed.
Certain people have even brought up Audited Reports and claimed there was No Evidence to Back up what We were Saying.

Gethin Jenkins even Says there are now on going talks with Langston
Exactly what We have Also been Saying that has been Happening since December 31st 2010.

SO THOSE WHO BELITTLE Carls Updates and FACTS REGARDING Langston etc etc, I think you should be Man enough and ADMIT WHEN YOUR WRONG.



Gethin Jenkins Todays South Wales Echo

LANGSTON

“TALKS continue in a positive manner. There are big numbers involved and they take time to be addressed.

There was agreement for the Langston debt to be paid by December 31. Agreement was reached for that to be extended and talks continue between Langston representatives and Cardiff City.

The doubters are quick enough to pounce when they think they can get one over on Carls updates, or show them up. Let's see if they're as quick now that they've been proven wrong over something the rest of us already knew

Annis when it says that the agreement has been extended past December 31st does it mean we can still pay back the reduced rate not the 24 million then and it will be settled?

Annis when it says that the agreement has been extended past December 31st does it mean we can still pay back the reduced rate not the 24 million then and it will be settled?

Neil
No, Whats happened now is that All parties are in daily talks but Def No New agreement has been written up/Signed Since December 31st 2010 .
But Talks are going really well.

" OUR CHIEF EXECUTIVE CONFIRMS THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT WITH LANGSTON "

Carl/Gwyn and Myself Told Everyone through out last year that The LANGSTON DEBT WAS TO BE PAID BY DECEMBER 31st 2010 and that was was All agreed/Signed and Also All previous Agreements were Null and Void.
We got Slaughtered by Certain People and Ridiculed.
Certain people have even brought up Audited Reports and claimed there was No Evidence to Back up what We were Saying.

Gethin Jenkins even Says there are now on going talks with Langston
Exactly what We have Also been Saying that has been Happening since December 31st 2010.

SO THOSE WHO BELITTLE Carls Updates and FACTS REGARDING Langston etc etc, I think you should be Man enough and ADMIT WHEN YOUR WRONG.



Gethin Jenkins Todays South Wales Echo

LANGSTON

“TALKS continue in a positive manner. There are big numbers involved and they take time to be addressed.

There was agreement for the Langston debt to be paid by December 31. Agreement was reached for that to be extended and talks continue between Langston representatives and Cardiff City.

Sorry Annis, I think I'm one of the people you are having a dig at, but I can't see any mention in that sentence of previous agreements being null and void, only an agreed extension of agreement 3, which NOBODY has mentioned previously.

If anything this puts the scaremongering to bed and is the opposite of what yu and Carl have said (the time has passed for them to be paid and we now owe £24m, 30m etc... as it appears the £10m agreement is still valid) and IMHO is good news.

" OUR CHIEF EXECUTIVE CONFIRMS THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT WITH LANGSTON "

Carl/Gwyn and Myself Told Everyone through out last year that The LANGSTON DEBT WAS TO BE PAID BY DECEMBER 31st 2010 and that was was All agreed/Signed and Also All previous Agreements were Null and Void.
We got Slaughtered by Certain People and Ridiculed.
Certain people have even brought up Audited Reports and claimed there was No Evidence to Back up what We were Saying.

Gethin Jenkins even Says there are now on going talks with Langston
Exactly what We have Also been Saying that has been Happening since December 31st 2010.

SO THOSE WHO BELITTLE Carls Updates and FACTS REGARDING Langston etc etc, I think you should be Man enough and ADMIT WHEN YOUR WRONG.



Gethin Jenkins Todays South Wales Echo

LANGSTON

“TALKS continue in a positive manner. There are big numbers involved and they take time to be addressed.

There was agreement for the Langston debt to be paid by December 31. Agreement was reached for that to be extended and talks continue between Langston representatives and Cardiff City.

Sorry Annis, I think I'm one of the people you are having a dig at, but I can't see any mention in that sentence of previous agreements being null and void, only an agreed extension of agreement 3, which NOBODY has mentioned previously.

If anything this puts the scaremongering to bed and is the opposite of what yu and Carl have said (the time has passed for them to be paid and we now owe £24m, 30m etc... as it appears the £10m agreement is still valid) and IMHO is good news.

Tim, I promise you All Previous Agreements are DEF NULL and VOID.

" OUR CHIEF EXECUTIVE CONFIRMS THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT WITH LANGSTON "

Carl/Gwyn and Myself Told Everyone through out last year that The LANGSTON DEBT WAS TO BE PAID BY DECEMBER 31st 2010 and that was was All agreed/Signed and Also All previous Agreements were Null and Void.
We got Slaughtered by Certain People and Ridiculed.
Certain people have even brought up Audited Reports and claimed there was No Evidence to Back up what We were Saying.

Gethin Jenkins even Says there are now on going talks with Langston
Exactly what We have Also been Saying that has been Happening since December 31st 2010.

SO THOSE WHO BELITTLE Carls Updates and FACTS REGARDING Langston etc etc, I think you should be Man enough and ADMIT WHEN YOUR WRONG.



Gethin Jenkins Todays South Wales Echo

LANGSTON

“TALKS continue in a positive manner. There are big numbers involved and they take time to be addressed.

There was agreement for the Langston debt to be paid by December 31. Agreement was reached for that to be extended and talks continue between Langston representatives and Cardiff City.

Sorry Annis, I think I'm one of the people you are having a dig at, but I can't see any mention in that sentence of previous agreements being null and void, only an agreed extension of agreement 3, which NOBODY has mentioned previously.

If anything this puts the scaremongering to bed and is the opposite of what yu and Carl have said (the time has passed for them to be paid and we now owe £24m, 30m etc... as it appears the £10m agreement is still valid) and IMHO is good news.

Tim, I promise you All Previous Agreements are DEF NULL and VOID.

So when Sam told you we were back to agrement 1 (as agreement 3 had timed out) and now owed £24m + interest he wasn't telling you the whole story i.e. Agreement 3 was still in force.

The debate we had was on the basis that agreement 3 had timed out and my view was we would revert to no. 2 and you were adamant it was no. 1. Seems like we were both wrong as nobody had said that agreement 3 had been extended.

Question for you - and I don't expect you to be accurate on this as its clearly confidential, but do you think the payment will end up being less than £10m (my expectation), £10-£20m, or £20m + ?

Tim,

No's 1,2,3 Means Nothing to me whats soever as I Only Care about The Following.

A New agreement was made with Langston and The Riddler and the Money was lowered to £10 Mill as long as it was paid by Dec 31st 2010(Plus £5 mill if we get promoted etc), then after that Date it WOULD BE REVERTED BACK TO £24 Mill.
That I have seen and Gethin Jenkins has Virtually Admitted to that and if Asked will DEF NOT DENY THATS THE AGREEMENT THAT IS IN PLACE AT THIS CURRENT MOMENT, NO OTHER AGREEMENT EXISTS ANYMORE.

I STAND BY THIS.

The issue is this, most City fans and observers have no time for Hammam, most believe he is a proven liar, he has history and it's unlikely he'll ever be able to redeem himself. By nailing this boards colours so firmly to the pro-Hammam bandwagon any news Carl may post relating to the business side of the club is viewed and treated with suspicion and doubt. It is far too murky and has more than a whiff of unscrupulous activities, this is the regrettable legacy of Hammam, Ridsdale, PMG etc.

After a difficult week for City supporters perhaps we'd be best concentrating on tomorrows match.......let the 'suits' continue with their negotiations, the facts can be reported when they're confirmed and agreed by all parties.

So when Sam told you we were back to agrement 1 (as agreement 3 had timed out) and now owed £24m + interest he wasn't telling you the whole story i.e. Agreement 3 was still in force.

The debate we had was on the basis that agreement 3 had timed out and my view was we would revert to no. 2 and you were adamant it was no. 1. Seems like we were both wrong as nobody had said that agreement 3 had been extended.

Question for you - and I don't expect you to be accurate on this as its clearly confidential, but do you think the payment will end up being less than £10m (my expectation), £10-£20m, or £20m + ?

Tim I can see your logic in coming to that conclusion, but Annis has cleared that up by stating that as part of Langston agreeing to lower their settlement figure (£10m + £5m promotion bonus) a clause was inserted which stated that the amount owed will revert to £24m if no agreement is reached by December 2010.

From Ridsdale's point of view I would speculate he was happy to include the clause in the full knowledge it would probably never be paid, ceratinly not by him any way.

The current state of play as you correctly point out is that both sides have agreed to extend the deadline (another of Annis predictions). When that is due to expire is not clear (the summer would be the most likely) but what we are now aware of is that if no agreement is reached by then the Langston notes return to £24m.

So when Sam told you we were back to agrement 1 (as agreement 3 had timed out) and now owed £24m + interest he wasn't telling you the whole story i.e. Agreement 3 was still in force.

The debate we had was on the basis that agreement 3 had timed out and my view was we would revert to no. 2 and you were adamant it was no. 1. Seems like we were both wrong as nobody had said that agreement 3 had been extended.

Question for you - and I don't expect you to be accurate on this as its clearly confidential, but do you think the payment will end up being less than £10m (my expectation), £10-£20m, or £20m + ?

Tim I can see your logic in coming to that conclusion, but Annis has cleared that up by stating that as part of Langston agreeing to lower their settlement figure (£10m + £5m promotion bonus) a clause was inserted which stated that the amount owed will revert to £24m if no agreement is reached by December 2010.

From Ridsdale's point of view I would speculate he was happy to include the clause in the full knowledge it would probably never be paid, ceratinly not by him any way.

The current state of play as you correctly point out is that both sides have agreed to extend the deadline (another of Annis predictions). When that is due to expire is not clear (the summer would be the most likely) but what we are now aware of is that if no agreement is reached by then the Langston notes return to £24m.

Tony. So we can still settle for £10m - yes, because thats what it looks like to me ?

I'll bet my dog that the clause of extending it to £24m will NEVER come in to force.

A few weeks ago we were being told Sam was in the driving seat, the agreement had ended and we were reverting to the original loan notes deal -£24m + interest.

This revelation from Jenkins is a new one. Sam would have known about this obviously, so WHY did he not share that key information with Annis and Carl ?

As I said before, if he comes back, then I'll back him as I did before, but to me this is another example of what he did before and thats manipulate the truth for his own ends. I don't dislike him, we've had far worse chairmen in my eyes (although I DO like the way the club is run at the moment -see Gethin Jenkins interview in the paper today, its excellent), but I WILL treat anything said, which originates from Sam with suspicion. If I didnt I'd be a mug.

Annis seems to think that I'm doubting his word, but its not that, he's got no reason to say anything other than what he knows, his love of the club cannot be questioned . What I DO have doubt with is the source of the information regarding the Langston dealings as Sam has plenty of previous for manipulating the truth.

Finally I'll get back to my constant theme on this one -the sooner its sorted the better. I have a feeling though that both parties are waiting to see where we'll finish this season.

So when Sam told you we were back to agrement 1 (as agreement 3 had timed out) and now owed £24m + interest he wasn't telling you the whole story i.e. Agreement 3 was still in force.

The debate we had was on the basis that agreement 3 had timed out and my view was we would revert to no. 2 and you were adamant it was no. 1. Seems like we were both wrong as nobody had said that agreement 3 had been extended.

Question for you - and I don't expect you to be accurate on this as its clearly confidential, but do you think the payment will end up being less than £10m (my expectation), £10-£20m, or £20m + ?

Tim I can see your logic in coming to that conclusion, but Annis has cleared that up by stating that as part of Langston agreeing to lower their settlement figure (£10m + £5m promotion bonus) a clause was inserted which stated that the amount owed will revert to £24m if no agreement is reached by December 2010.



From Ridsdale's point of view I would speculate he was happy to include the clause in the full knowledge it would probably never be paid, ceratinly not by him any way.

The current state of play as you correctly point out is that both sides have agreed to extend the deadline (another of Annis predictions). When that is due to expire is not clear (the summer would be the most likely) but what we are now aware of is that if no agreement is reached by then the Langston notes return to £24m.

Tony

If Annis has seen the agreement and has seen the clause regarding the reversion to £24million then I am not going to doubt his word.

However if he is just being told this then I think there is cause for doubt.

After all up until now this "source" providing Annis and presumably Carl with their information seems to have been pretty clear that the 3rd agreement expired on 31st December and that the club was therefore liable for the £24 million from the date. Not even the hint that it had beene extended.

Now Gethin Jenkins is saying that agreement was reached to extend that deadline. He doesn't say so so I am guessing here but I would think that the extension was agreed before the 31st December because I can't see Vincent Tan allowing an agreement to lapse leaving a potential liability of £24 million,

So if the source was wromg about the extension is it neccessarily correct when it says that all previous agreements are null and void?

Regards


Elwood

So when Sam told you we were back to agrement 1 (as agreement 3 had timed out) and now owed £24m + interest he wasn't telling you the whole story i.e. Agreement 3 was still in force.

The debate we had was on the basis that agreement 3 had timed out and my view was we would revert to no. 2 and you were adamant it was no. 1. Seems like we were both wrong as nobody had said that agreement 3 had been extended.

Question for you - and I don't expect you to be accurate on this as its clearly confidential, but do you think the payment will end up being less than £10m (my expectation), £10-£20m, or £20m + ?

Tim I can see your logic in coming to that conclusion, but Annis has cleared that up by stating that as part of Langston agreeing to lower their settlement figure (£10m + £5m promotion bonus) a clause was inserted which stated that the amount owed will revert to £24m if no agreement is reached by December 2010.



From Ridsdale's point of view I would speculate he was happy to include the clause in the full knowledge it would probably never be paid, ceratinly not by him any way.

The current state of play as you correctly point out is that both sides have agreed to extend the deadline (another of Annis predictions). When that is due to expire is not clear (the summer would be the most likely) but what we are now aware of is that if no agreement is reached by then the Langston notes return to £24m.

Tony

If Annis has seen the agreement and has seen the clause regarding the reversion to £24million then I am not going to doubt his word.

However if he is just being told this then I think there is cause for doubt.

After all up until now this "source" providing Annis and presumably Carl with their information seems to have been pretty clear that the 3rd agreement expired on 31st December and that the club was therefore liable for the £24 million from the date. Not even the hint that it had beene extended.

Now Gethin Jenkins is saying that agreement was reached to extend that deadline. He doesn't say so so I am guessing here but I would think that the extension was agreed before the 31st December because I can't see Vincent Tan allowing an agreement to lapse leaving a potential liability of £24 million,

So if the source was wromg about the extension is it neccessarily correct when it says that all previous agreements are null and void?

Regards


Elwood

Or that the source was unaware talks were ongoing when passing info on?

Tony

If Annis has seen the agreement and has seen the clause regarding the reversion to £24million then I am not going to doubt his word.

However if he is just being told this then I think there is cause for doubt.

After all up until now this "source" providing Annis and presumably Carl with their information seems to have been pretty clear that the 3rd agreement expired on 31st December and that the club was therefore liable for the £24 million from the date. Not even the hint that it had beene extended.

Now Gethin Jenkins is saying that agreement was reached to extend that deadline. He doesn't say so so I am guessing here but I would think that the extension was agreed before the 31st December because I can't see Vincent Tan allowing an agreement to lapse leaving a potential liability of £24 million,

So if the source was wromg about the extension is it neccessarily correct when it says that all previous agreements are null and void?

Regards


Elwood[/quote]


Or that the source was unaware talks were ongoing when passing info on?[/quote]


What ? Sam didnt know he was talking to TG/Tan

Elwood and Tim, it has DEF NOT been Extended, The Malaysians are daily talking to Sam. MY HONEST OPINION, THEY ARE PLAYING FOR TIME, TO SEE WHERE WE END UP AT THE END OF THIS SEASON.

Elwood and Tim, it has DEF NOT been Extended, The Malaysians are daily talking to Sam. MY HONEST OPINION, THEY ARE PLAYING FOR TIME, TO SEE WHERE WE END UP AT THE END OF THIS SEASON.

Jenkins own words are 'agreement has been reached for it to be extended..'

Is he lying ?

Or is it just the '£24m clause' been extended. It really wouldnt make any sense for this to be the case.

I know that you are closer to this than I am, but I still beleive you arent being told the whole story.

I think this can go round in circles Annis.

I agree with you though that they will wait to see what happens this season. IMHO it would improve Sam's bargaining position if we went up quite considerably.

I'd still be happy to place a bet with you - say for the AAMB Young Guns appeal, £50 that the MOST Sam will ever get is £10m

Elwood and Tim, it has DEF NOT been Extended, The Malaysians are daily talking to Sam. MY HONEST OPINION, THEY ARE PLAYING FOR TIME, TO SEE WHERE WE END UP AT THE END OF THIS SEASON.

Jenkins own words are 'agreement has been reached for it to be extended..'

Is he lying ?

Or is it just the '£24m clause' been extended. It really wouldnt make any sense for this to be the case.

I know that you are closer to this than I am, but I still beleive you arent being told the whole story.

I think this can go round in circles Annis.

I agree with you though that they will wait to see what happens this season. IMHO it would improve Sam's bargaining position if we went up quite considerably.

I'd still be happy to place a bet with you - say for the AAMB Young Guns appeal, £50 that the MOST Sam will ever get is £10m

No Tim, Sam has agreed for them to continue talks and Has promised No court Cases.

Tony

If Annis has seen the agreement and has seen the clause regarding the reversion to £24million then I am not going to doubt his word.

However if he is just being told this then I think there is cause for doubt.

After all up until now this "source" providing Annis and presumably Carl with their information seems to have been pretty clear that the 3rd agreement expired on 31st December and that the club was therefore liable for the £24 million from the date. Not even the hint that it had beene extended.

Now Gethin Jenkins is saying that agreement was reached to extend that deadline. He doesn't say so so I am guessing here but I would think that the extension was agreed before the 31st December because I can't see Vincent Tan allowing an agreement to lapse leaving a potential liability of £24 million,

So if the source was wromg about the extension is it neccessarily correct when it says that all previous agreements are null and void?

Regards


Elwood

To Elwood and Tim, like you I'm only guessing at what is going on by taking Annis & Carl's word in good faith as they would never deliberately mislead members of this message board.

So my interpretation of what has happened is this. Ridsdale agreed with Sam in December 2009 that the amount owed would drop from £15m cash + £9m stadium rights + £5m promotion bonus (what we call 'Note 2') to £10m cash + £5m for either or Promotion/Naming Rights (what we know as 'Note 3’).

Contained within 'Note 3' was a clause that said if the £10m cash was not paid by 31st December 2010 then the capital amount would rise to £24m + all historical interest.

Like all contracts once 'Note 3' was signed it superseded Note 2 in the same way Note 2 superseded Note 1 2006. So £24m + historical interest is due from the terms of 'Note 3' not 'Note 1'

Gethin Jenkins is probably referring to an 'extension' in terms of Sam is speaking to the club on an ongoing basis rather than any official agreement. Obviously Sam could claim to be in a strong position if the £24m + interest are due by terms of Note 3 as that is the current agreement.

As for the information provided by Annis and Carl, they have simply quoted the terms of Note 3 in that £24m is owed if the £10m was not paid by 31st December 2010. IMO this is where the confusion has arisen with regard to which Loan Note is valid because everyone assumed they were talking about the 2004 Loan Note i.e. Loan Note 1.

I hope that helps (providing it’s correct of course)

ffs not this old chessnut again,this is how it stands at the mo,if num 2 comes into play forget num 1 and 3,but if num 3 comes into play forget 1 and 2 but if num 1 comes into play forget 2 and 3 if num 2 and 3 come into play forget num 1 but if num 1 and 3 comes forget number 2 yet if 1 and 2 emerge then all sorted get my drift i hope so cause i havnet a clue just let me know when its all sorted

Elwood and Tim, it has DEF NOT been Extended, The Malaysians are daily talking to Sam. MY HONEST OPINION, THEY ARE PLAYING FOR TIME, TO SEE WHERE WE END UP AT THE END OF THIS SEASON.

Jenkins own words are 'agreement has been reached for it to be extended..'

Is he lying ?

Or is it just the '£24m clause' been extended. It really wouldnt make any sense for this to be the case.

I know that you are closer to this than I am, but I still beleive you arent being told the whole story.

I think this can go round in circles Annis.

I agree with you though that they will wait to see what happens this season. IMHO it would improve Sam's bargaining position if we went up quite considerably.

I'd still be happy to place a bet with you - say for the AAMB Young Guns appeal, £50 that the MOST Sam will ever get is £10m

No Tim, Sam has agreed for them to continue talks and Has promised No court Cases.

Going to take my bet on Annis

Tony

If Annis has seen the agreement and has seen the clause regarding the reversion to £24million then I am not going to doubt his word.

However if he is just being told this then I think there is cause for doubt.

After all up until now this "source" providing Annis and presumably Carl with their information seems to have been pretty clear that the 3rd agreement expired on 31st December and that the club was therefore liable for the £24 million from the date. Not even the hint that it had beene extended.

Now Gethin Jenkins is saying that agreement was reached to extend that deadline. He doesn't say so so I am guessing here but I would think that the extension was agreed before the 31st December because I can't see Vincent Tan allowing an agreement to lapse leaving a potential liability of £24 million,

So if the source was wromg about the extension is it neccessarily correct when it says that all previous agreements are null and void?

Regards


Elwood

To Elwood and Tim, like you I'm only guessing at what is going on by taking Annis & Carl's word in good faith as they would never deliberately mislead members of this message board.

So my interpretation of what has happened is this. Ridsdale agreed with Sam in December 2009 that the amount owed would drop from £15m cash + £9m stadium rights + £5m promotion bonus (what we call 'Note 2') to £10m cash + £5m for either or Promotion/Naming Rights (what we know as 'Note 3’).

Contained within 'Note 3' was a clause that said if the £10m cash was not paid by 31st December 2010 then the capital amount would rise to £24m + all historical interest.

Like all contracts once 'Note 3' was signed it superseded Note 2 in the same way Note 2 superseded Note 1 2006. So £24m + historical interest is due from the terms of 'Note 3' not 'Note 1'

Gethin Jenkins is probably referring to an 'extension' in terms of Sam is speaking to the club on an ongoing basis rather than any official agreement. Obviously Sam could claim to be in a strong position if the £24m + interest are due by terms of Note 3 as that is the current agreement.

As for the information provided by Annis and Carl, they have simply quoted the terms of Note 3 in that £24m is owed if the £10m was not paid by 31st December 2010. IMO this is where the confusion has arisen with regard to which Loan Note is valid because everyone assumed they were talking about the 2004 Loan Note i.e. Loan Note 1.

I hope that helps (providing it’s correct of course)

Tony,
Thanks for that, just a few points to consider..
- the original agreement was definately what was mentioned in the previous discussions, it was said that agreement 3 had lapsed and we reverted to agreement 1, which is where the main debate came from.
- it seems to me a strange use of the term 'extension', given the amounts of money involved and the legal background of some of our directors I would doubt it was just a 'tacit' agreement, unless they are confident of their position.
- surely the Malaysians wouldnt just have sat back and let the £10m turn to £24m+ without having confidence that they wouldnt have to pay significantly more than the original £10m

Hopefully we'll have an AGM in a couple of months with the new accounts and can get some clarification there.

Annis when it says that the agreement has been extended past December 31st does it mean we can still pay back the reduced rate not the 24 million then and it will be settled?

Neil
No, Whats happened now is that All parties are in daily talks but Def No New agreement has been written up/Signed Since December 31st 2010 .
But Talks are going really well.

Annis,

REALLY WELL???? You bloody tease!!!!

Hopefully something in Carl's update later....

Enjoy the game tomorrow

Annis when it says that the agreement has been extended past December 31st does it mean we can still pay back the reduced rate not the 24 million then and it will be settled?

Neil
No, Whats happened now is that All parties are in daily talks but Def No New agreement has been written up/Signed Since December 31st 2010 .
But Talks are going really well.

Annis,

REALLY WELL???? You bloody tease!!!!

Hopefully something in Carl's update later....

Enjoy the game tomorrow

Sven,
Your right there is in Carls update TOMORROW NIGHT