" TIME FOR THE MALAYSIANS TO DELIVER ? By Carl Curtis "

Ok, so... Carl's post
It is suggesting that the Malaysians might not only be accountable to the shareholders of the club but are also accountable to their customers (the fans) as well.
However, there is no legal requirement for them to report their intentions to their customers at this time.
As much as we jump up and down and gnash our teeth to know what direction their business is going to go the reality is that the club's strategy is a totally private matter for shareholders eyes only.

You could argue that it is in their best interests to update their customers asap but they've already got 17000 tickets sold for next season so they're probably not over concerned about finding customers at the moment. They know we're all blue til we die so why should they worry?

Langston are stakeholders but lets face it they are unsecured creditors and have absolutely no power to influence matters realting to the clubs operation. They could take legal action AGAIN to recover their loan but having lost out once well best of luck in the courts but lets face it SH could never ever try his LOVE of the club nonsense should Langston try to force issues through the courts.

Well I do question this.

Alot of us think because Sam or Langston lost in court last time then they would lose again. I dont accept this. The legal arguments then are different to now. The argument then was that the debt only needed to be paid by 2016. That argument is now void as a new agreement has been in place. That agreement being if the club paid £10 million by December 2010 the debt would be wiped. If this £10 million was not paid then it reverted back to £24 million. The fact that the debt was not paid in December 2010 could put Sam in a favourable position if he decided to go back to court.

In fact come to think of it did not Sunderland and Motherwell threaten court action. I think they did and the Malaysians paid up. I get the impression that the Malaysians dont like the idea of going to court, understandable. It makes me wonder if Sam threatened court action how would they react.

Ian, not only has loan note 3 fallen in for the reasons you state but loan note 2 has become payable because certain conditions within it have been breached.

What conditions have been breached Carl???

The decision will lay with TG & VT and after having looked through the whole situation, If they decide to allow Sam back on board in that capacity, then I trust them to make the correct decision and go along with it.

thats about the long and short of it. if it works best for VT and TG then Hammam will be back.

Sam has to remember that second chances in football are extremely rare!

very true


I want to know as the fans representative, will Carl Curtis be writing an article next week extolling the virtues of why Hammam should not return. After all, the fans are divided on the issue, so for impartiality, we should see an article against Hammam returning.

your not mine so where did you get that title from

It's one thing to express an opinion. If you want Sam back involved Carl or you think he did good things for our club then fine, I have no problem with that. It's quite another though to put your name to false information. The article doesn't even make sense. How can Sam have wiped out our debt and yet a large part of the current debt be down to the pre-Sam era? You do see that is nonsense don't you?

There are a lot of things Sam did during his time at Cardiff. He built up a massive debt. He lied constantly (remember his assurances before Black Friday?). One things he didn't do is put any of his money into the club. Since he left the club he kept up his good work by taking us to the brink of disappearing with his court action.

Like I said though, that is opinion. If that was all that was wrong with the article then I wouldn't have bothered posting on here. But you either don't have any grasp of the facts of the Sam era or you are deliberately trying to mislead others for some reason.

"martyn142"]"bluebird1977""Feedback"]["bluebird1977"]i remember watching him saying there was a new agreement so why do you need a link carls not a blagger [

I don't remember, is it wrong to ask for citation when someone is making a claim]

But there not claims there FACTS :lol

Is it a fact that sam wiped out all previous debt but that the current debt is partly down to debt accrued in the pre-Sam era? [/quote]










martyn

the reality is that when sam came into the club there were 1.5 million pounds worth of debt and when he left there were in excess of 27 million pounds worth of debt.
all that information can be gleaned from the audited accounts.
It always amazes me that when there is a bad week for the football club the clamour for sam to come back is ignited by this board.
Furthermore all this talk about broken agreements etc is worthless unless you have seen documentation with signature's of club and council officials on them .
until then they are purely draft documents

I didn't realise when I joined this forum that I automatically became a member of the Sam Hamman appreciation society.

Do you know the funny thing about this article? Yes, I shall say it does come across in a very propaganda style tone but you have all these people moaning about the debt here and there. If you said to each and every one of them 'would you accept this debt in exchange for being in the Championship battling to be in the Premiership, having won a playoff final at the Millennium Stadium and been to Wembley three times with a new stadium?'... I wonder how many would have rejected that offer.

I've stated my views about Hammam on here often enough but I'm not blinded enough to think he did no good. In an ideal world we'd have our debts erased and Hammam would move on. If Hammam coming back in a footballing capacity deals with our debts then so be it. Maybe he wants to remedy his mistakes or maybe he just wants to try and make more money? Who knows? I think Hammam is that much of a firework that even those closest to him don't fully understand him.

I am prepared for anything as a Cardiff fan. I just wish we'd all stop this 'I'm pro-Hammam' and 'I'm anti-Hammam' stuff because at the end of the day none of us will have a say or impact on what happens at the top so let's just sit back, all get on and suck up whatever comes our way.

I think the reason many have gone into spasm over all this is the intimation that Carls
piece was 'the fans view', when it obviously isnt. But lets be fair, its a newspaper and
its totally feasible for them to 'big up' Carl and make the article look somehow more
important than it is. Its his view, end of, and lets be honest... he hasnt tried to say
anything else. I think he's been had by the Echo over this.

As for Sam?

The ideal scenario for me would be him walking back in through the door and taking over
football matters, a man at the top back in touch with the rank and file. He will make this
ground intimidating (without arrests, just like the last few years at NP) He will be passionate
and will understand what we, the customer, want!!!..... Just by walking back into the Club
he will be eating a huge slice of humble pie, given that he once ran it, and would obviously
come back as subordinate to Vincent Tan in some shape or form. I also think coming back
will cost him financially. But if he is prepared to do all this then he will answer many of MY
questions as to his honesty and integrity. To me, it will mean he wants to be part of Cardiff
Citys future, and part of the 'Cardiff City family' again. Thats just MY view

Do you know the funny thing about this article? Yes, I shall say it does come across in a very propaganda style tone but you have all these people moaning about the debt here and there. If you said to each and every one of them 'would you accept this debt in exchange for being in the Championship battling to be in the Premiership, having won a playoff final at the Millennium Stadium and been to Wembley three times with a new stadium?'... I wonder how many would have rejected that offer.

I've stated my views about Hammam on here often enough but I'm not blinded enough to think he did no good. In an ideal world we'd have our debts erased and Hammam would move on. If Hammam coming back in a footballing capacity deals with our debts then so be it. Maybe he wants to remedy his mistakes or maybe he just wants to try and make more money? Who knows? I think Hammam is that much of a firework that even those closest to him don't fully understand him.

I am prepared for anything as a Cardiff fan. I just wish we'd all stop this 'I'm pro-Hammam' and 'I'm anti-Hammam' stuff because at the end of the day none of us will have a say or impact on what happens at the top so let's just sit back, all get on and suck up whatever comes our way.

I think the reason many have gone into spasm over all this is the intimation that Carls
piece was 'the fans view', when it obviously isnt. But lets be fair, its a newspaper and
its totally feasible for them to 'big up' Carl and make the article look somehow more
important than it is. Its his view, end of, and lets be honest... he hasnt tried to say
anything else. I think he's been had by the Echo over this.

As for Sam?

The ideal scenario for me would be him walking back in through the door and taking over
football matters, a man at the top back in touch with the rank and file. He will make this
ground intimidating (without arrests, just like the last few years at NP) He will be passionate
and will understand what we, the customer, want!!!..... Just by walking back into the Club
he will be eating a huge slice of humble pie, given that he once ran it, and would obviously
come back as subordinate to Vincent Tan in some shape or form. I also think coming back
will cost him financially. But if he is prepared to do all this then he will answer many of MY
questions as to his honesty and integrity. To me, it will mean he wants to be part of Cardiff
Citys future, and part of the 'Cardiff City family' again. Thats just MY view

I stopped reading as soon as I saw "honourably fell on his sword". That just sounds like a piss take.

The signed a deal to sign Peter Thorne for 1.7m Peter Thorne is one of my favourite City players but a 1m pound man he is not. Same goes for several players of that era. Hammam overspent, a trend we have followed ever since.

I would only like to see Hammam back if it stabilised our debts but I certainly do not think, like Ridsdale, that he should be welcome back at the stadium on match days.

I don't see the need to wade in with more criticism, but whilst if I was TG I'd be thinking "Ungrateful Cardiff Gits!", I can kind of see where Carl's coming from.

As fans, whilst I'm sure Carl is as grateful to TG & VT as the rest of us, we're itching to know what their plans are, if/when they're going to buy the whole club, pay off the debts, get a new manager, sign new players etc etc etc. This is perfectcly normal and understandable, none of our damned business, but hey, it's what we all talk about at home, pubs, clubs, work etc.

The danger of the views being put in the Echo is that while WE all know Carl is one of us, is that to the average Echo reader, those views can be perceived as "fact", "policy" whatever.

IF there are factual errors in the piece (I don't know enough either way to judge) then what the hell is the Echo's sports editor doing?

To be fair to Carl, he's just a punter like the rest of us, expressing his views in a manner that few of us are articulate enough to do. As far as I know, he's had no journalistic training or years of experience, so as I say, what on earth is the sport's editor/senior writer doing? Surely he should be helping Carl? I'm not sure what's worse, not checking it, or checking it and not seeing anything to worry about.

It is refreshing to read so many posts that seem SAM is not wanted at the club if this thread is anything to go by,plus the other boards thread. Sam was chairman and we got promoted twice,my nan could of got us promoted on those stupid wages handed out,thorne was bought 1.7mil and was on 10 grand a GOAL,who the hell would sanction that sort of deal!!!!!!!! also when spencer prior signed he asked for so much per week and SAM said no thats small minded,and we want to make a statement,and gave the guy more,they are both very true stories, i was and still am good friends with two ex players who played in that same side.The guy is a liability and a massive no no for the club,i have stopped posting on this board as every couple of weeks there is a new publicity drive by people on here,on behalf of their good friend SAM,to get his name in lights and back at the club.

Sorry to be rude, but what a load of old Bollocks!!! Do us all a favour and go back to not posting, eh Chief

How is this NOT classified as a snipe!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry to be rude, but what a load of old Bollocks!!! Do us all a favour and go back to not posting, eh Chief

How is this NOT classified as a snipe!!!!!!!!!!!

It only classes as one if a mod or above says its a snipe

I don' think the malaysians will be too fussed if it goes to court eh Carl? The only loser in that scenario would be Sam.

A judgement in his favor would mean administration, where he would receive pennies on the pound if that.

My thoughts exactly.

I don' think the malaysians will be too fussed if it goes to court eh Carl? The only loser in that scenario would be Sam.

A judgement in his favor would mean administration, where he would receive pennies on the pound if that.

Disagree.

A judgement is Sam favour would basically secure his debt. The club would have a court order to pay Sam. Going into personal administration to avoid this, that is CCFC putting themselves into admin, would mean the Malaysians losing all their own invested money. That is not going to happen and is not an option.

Sorry to be rude, but what a load of old Bollocks!!! Do us all a favour and go back to not posting, eh Chief

How is this NOT classified as a snipe!!!!!!!!!!!

It only classes as one if a mod or above says its a snipe

To be fair, the mods on here have to eat, sleep, work, go to the loo etc, and no way can they be expected to see every single post.

How they manage to read as much as they do is a miracle.

Maybe help them out and report the post?

To be fair, the mods on here have to eat, sleep, work, go to the loo etc, and no way can they be expected to see every single post.

How they manage to read as much as they do is a miracle.

Maybe help them out and report the post?

Done

I don' think the malaysians will be too fussed if it goes to court eh Carl? The only loser in that scenario would be Sam.

A judgement in his favor would mean administration, where he would receive pennies on the pound if that.

Disagree.

A judgement is Sam favour would basically secure his debt. The club would have a court order to pay Sam. Going into personal administration to avoid this, that is CCFC putting themselves into admin, would mean the Malaysians losing all their own invested money. That is not going to happen and is not an option.

Getting judgement would do no such thing. The debt would remain unsecured , as it is now. Judgement just means that a debt is regarded by a court as due but has no impact on whether it is secured or not.

Also , there is no such thing as "personal administration" in law.

So a court judgement would just say how much of a debt is due.But the club seems quite clear on this anyway , together with the fact that it is not payable until Dec 2016.

:shock: I didn't realise when I joined this forum that I automatically became a member of the Sam Hamman appreciation society.

God help us if this is going to continue all summer

To be fair, the mods on here have to eat, sleep, work, go to the loo etc, and no way can they be expected to see every single post.

How they manage to read as much as they do is a miracle.

Maybe help them out and report the post?

Done

Carl

As you know , I disagree entirely with your view on the whole Langston debt affair. But could you at least clarify a few key points , as asked over the months and elsewhere in this thread but which have never been answered


1) you and Annis both say you have actually seen a number of agreements between the club and Langston , so

a) were these shown to you by Sam Hammam , and if not who did show them to you as very few people would have had access to such agreements

b) were the agreements you saw actually signed (if so who signed them for the club and who for Langston)?These are vital matters that you must have noticed at the time and and at least one of you must remember

c) what was the actual wording of the clause that you have since claimed has been breached and did you fully understand the legal wording of it or are you basing your views on how Sam claims it should be interpreted?

These are fundamental issues to which it seems only a few of you who were (alledgedly)present there at Annis house when reading the paperwork can provide straight answers to.

Although you and I disagree over this key issue , you have never resorted to threats of violence against me for having a different view , and we have always managed to discuss our disagreement rationally.

But you have it within your power to clarify a number of these matters instantly which would help alleviate the battle between CCFC fans which continue over this thorny issue.Just by answering the above simple questions.

Keith

To be fair, the mods on here have to eat, sleep, work, go to the loo etc, and no way can they be expected to see every single post.

How they manage to read as much as they do is a miracle.

Maybe help them out and report the post?

Done

Carl

As you know , I disagree entirely with your view on the whole Langston debt affair. But could you at least clarify a few key points , as asked over the months and elsewhere in this thread but which have never been answered


1) you and Annis both say you have actually seen a number of agreements between the club and Langston , so

a) were these shown to you by Sam Hammam , and if not who did show them to you as very few people would have had access to such agreements

b) were the agreements you saw actually signed (if so who signed them for the club and who for Langston)?These are vital matters that you must have noticed at the time and and at least one of you must remember

c) what was the actual wording of the clause that you have since claimed has been breached and did you fully understand the legal wording of it or are you basing your views on how Sam claims it should be interpreted?

These are fundamental issues to which it seems only a few of you who were (alledgedly)present there at Annis house when reading the paperwork can provide straight answers to.

Although you and I disagree over this key issue , you have never resorted to threats of violence against me for having a different view , and we have always managed to discuss our disagreement rationally.

But you have it within your power to clarify a number of these matters instantly which would help alleviate the battle between CCFC fans which continue over this thorny issue.Just by answering the above simple questions.

Keith

Keith I don't know why you have said about 'threats of violence' but regarding the documents as you can appreciate it would not be wise of me to discuss matters that were discussed in private. I am sure if you were shown documents or spoke about documents and conditions set in them which may or may not be played out in a court room ( not that I an suggesting it will, but there is a possibility ) then I would be compromising all concerned by talking of such matters on an open forum.

I don' think the malaysians will be too fussed if it goes to court eh Carl? The only loser in that scenario would be Sam.

A judgement in his favor would mean administration, where he would receive pennies on the pound if that.

Disagree.

A judgement is Sam favour would basically secure his debt. The club would have a court order to pay Sam. Going into personal administration to avoid this, that is CCFC putting themselves into admin, would mean the Malaysians losing all their own invested money. That is not going to happen and is not an option.

Getting judgement would do no such thing. The debt would remain unsecured , as it is now. Judgement just means that a debt is regarded by a court as due but has no impact on whether it is secured or not.

Also , there is no such thing as "personal administration" in law.

So a court judgement would just say how much of a debt is due.But the club seems quite clear on this anyway , together with the fact that it is not payable until Dec 2016.

When was the last time Keith that the club stated the loan note is not payable until 2016 ?

I don' think the malaysians will be too fussed if it goes to court eh Carl? The only loser in that scenario would be Sam.

A judgement in his favor would mean administration, where he would receive pennies on the pound if that.

Disagree.

A judgement is Sam favour would basically secure his debt. The club would have a court order to pay Sam. Going into personal administration to avoid this, that is CCFC putting themselves into admin, would mean the Malaysians losing all their own invested money. That is not going to happen and is not an option.

Getting judgement would do no such thing. The debt would remain unsecured , as it is now. Judgement just means that a debt is regarded by a court as due but has no impact on whether it is secured or not.

Also , there is no such thing as "personal administration" in law.

So a court judgement would just say how much of a debt is due.But the club seems quite clear on this anyway , together with the fact that it is not payable until Dec 2016.

Keith I said basically secure the debt. That is there would be a judgement to pay the debt. Upon failure to pay then it would leave Sam sort payment either by administration or other means such as the bailiffs.

Personal bankruptcy is what I meant.

No I meant the club putting intself into administration.

To be fair, the mods on here have to eat, sleep, work, go to the loo etc, and no way can they be expected to see every single post.

How they manage to read as much as they do is a miracle.

Maybe help them out and report the post
Done


Carl

As you know , I disagree entirely with your view on the whole Langston debt affair. But could you at least clarify a few key points , as asked over the months and elsewhere in this thread but which have never been answered


1) you and Annis both say you have actually seen a number of agreements between the club and Langston , so

a) were these shown to you by Sam Hammam , and if not who did show them to you as very few people would have had access to such agreements

b) were the agreements you saw actually signed (if so who signed them for the club and who for Langston)?These are vital matters that you must have noticed at the time and and at least one of you must remember

c) what was the actual wording of the clause that you have since claimed has been breached and did you fully understand the legal wording of it or are you basing your views on how Sam claims it should be interpreted?

These are fundamental issues to which it seems only a few of you who were (alledgedly)present there at Annis house when reading the paperwork can provide straight answers to.

Although you and I disagree over this key issue , you have never resorted to threats of violence against me for having a different view , and we have always managed to discuss our disagreement rationally.

But you have it within your power to clarify a number of these matters instantly which would help alleviate the battle between CCFC fans which continue over this thorny issue.Just by answering the above simple questions.



Keith I don't know why you have said about 'threats of violence' but regarding the documents as you can appreciate it would not be wise of me to discuss matters that were discussed in private. I am sure if you were shown documents or spoke about documents and conditions set in them which may or may not be played out in a court room ( not that I an suggesting it will, but there is a possibility ) then I would be compromising all concerned by talking of such matters on an open forum






carl

you are the person who brought the attention of these documents to this message board and you are the person who is based on seeing these documents stating the club has broken them.
its a simple question what myself and keith are asking and that is did you see the signatures on the document representing langston, the club and also the council who are still privvy to being part of this whole scenario.
its simple really we dont need you to name names but no signatures mean they are just draft documents and basically worthless.

Good Article Carl.... bloody good read - you should be in the Echo every night.

4am here - me and mo jo cant sleep lol....... he says to tell you even though he hasnt met you he says you come across as an intelligent bloke , your writing style is quality and thanks you for all the info !

i said u a ...... nah only joking mate !

Good Article Carl.... bloody good read - you should be in the Echo every night.

4am here - me and mo jo cant sleep lol....... he says to tell you even though he hasnt met you he says you come across as an intelligent bloke , your writing style is quality and thanks you for all the info !

i said u a ...... nah only joking mate !

havent chucked the lady boys out already have you steve

Good Article Carl.... bloody good read - you should be in the Echo every night.

4am here - me and mo jo cant sleep lol....... he says to tell you even though he hasnt met you he says you come across as an intelligent bloke , your writing style is quality and thanks you for all the info !

i said u a ...... nah only joking mate !

havent chucked the lady boys out already have you steve

mo jos dressed like one

Good Article Carl.... bloody good read - you should be in the Echo every night.

4am here - me and mo jo cant sleep lol....... he says to tell you even though he hasnt met you he says you come across as an intelligent bloke , your writing style is quality and thanks you for all the info !

i said u a ...... nah only joking mate !

Cheers Steve and thanks to Mo Jo
Leave the Lady boys alone

Great read Carl lets hope they take notice