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

It is easy to pick holes when you isolate sentences instead of taking the whole article at face value. I think Carl raises a number of good points which include the starvation of funding for the academy with the inevitable ending of the production line of saleable assets. Under Sam Hammam the academy was well funded and produced the likes of Aaron Ramsey.

Personally I have always thought our future is totally linked to Vincent Tan’s ability to gain a betting licence in Malaysia. If you look at the new Malaysian directors they all seem to be linked to gaming/betting (mostly in the Philippines) so IMO it is a safe bet we will be in the Premier League by 2013, the year Tan has been promised his licence and the date by which the takeover agreement says PMG etc will be paid off and sent into the sunset.

Damien, why do I have to be impartial, I am a fan not a journo.

fine, but ask the local RAG to state you are not the fans representative and make it clear this is only your opinion. The fans' opinion is clear on this when you read both forums - Sam Hammam is not wanted back by the majority of city fans who use both forums. If you were objective, you'd suggest that whilst the majority do not want Hammam back , you do and you'd set out your reasons. That would be much more objective. Instead it is dressed up as something that has no verisimilitude whatsoever.

I did not hear people claiming I should be writing an article why Dave Jones should be sacked the week after I am asking everyone to support him.

that's because keeping Dave Jones as manager is unlikely to see the club fold. for his faults Dave Jones is a professional football manager who goes about his job the right way. Hammam nearly crippled this club, two words: BLACK FRIDAY

Last edited by Feedback on Thu May 26, 2011 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sam give us 6 false years he lead us to believe he was investing is own money in the club when he was putting us more in debt.now he wants it all back most of our debt and financial troubles have been to do with sam H and i for one would not welcome him back to the club i love

Damien, why do I have to be impartial, I am a fan not a journo.

fine, but ask the local RAG to state you are not the fans representative and make it clear this is only your opinion. The fans' opinion is clear on this when you read both forums - Sam Hammam is not wanted back by the majority of city fans who use both forums. If you were objective, you'd suggest that whilst the majority do not want Hammam back , you do and you'd set out your reasons. That would be much more objective. Instead it is dressed up as something that has no verisimilitude whatsoever.

I did not hear people claiming I should be writing an article why Dave Jones should be sacked the week after I am asking everyone to support him.

that's because keeping Dave Jones as manager is unlikely to see the club fold. for his faults Dave Jones is a professional football manager who goes about his job the right way. Hammam nearly crippled this club, two words: BLACK FRIDAY

Damien I will say again that I rang the Echo and had the Fans leader tag removed from the online piece last time and said I never wanted to be called a leader as I am not and certainly do not see myself as one.

I take your views on board and I wrote what I believe in, I am not slating the Malaysians but asking for a statement of intent, nothing more.

Do you think that it would be best for them to buy everyone out and own the club themselves ?

sam give us 6 false years he lead us to believe he was investing is own money in the club when he was putting us more in debt.now he wants it all back most of our debt and financial troubles have been to do with sam H and i for one would not welcome him back to the club i love

Fair enough Steve but the Malaysians are putting their own money and are putting the majority through the club as a way of loans, do you think that they would want a return of equal or better on those loans at some point in the future ?

I thought the Malaysians delivered the best squad for years.
It was DJ who didn’t deliver.

I thought the Malaysians delivered the best squad for years.
It was DJ who didn’t deliver.

And where is that squad now ?

London, Manchester, Wigan, Glasgow, Derby, Hull.

It failed.

I enjoyed the article, far from being a Carl follower, I met him on a trip to Watford and bump into him at home game I think a sense of balance is needed here. Its journalism now Tucker, or Carl or whoever writes in any newspaper will put views across. We are by nature not all going to agree with the points that the reason we buy and read papers in the first instance as they engage our minds and open debate whether it be politics or football. Clearly not everyone will agree with the article. But some of the over reaction towards Carl does seem a bit sad , he did state last week I think on here he rang the IC wales and asked them to alter the 'Fans leader' etc. Im sure Carl doesnt seem him as that, we have all read his updates on this forum and due to the hits and reaction clearly he was asked to write for the paper. Keep it up Carl the sensible posters will realise were not all going to agree on the same matters but lets keep it civil were all City fans

I thought the Malaysians delivered the best squad for years.
It was DJ who didn’t deliver.

And where is that squad now ?

London, Manchester, Wigan, Glasgow, Derby, Hull.

It failed.

You do have to step back here though. As the man asks, did the malaysians fail to deliver, or DJ who you supported to the end. Hence why I have the issue with the articles title and many others it appears with the tone.

Do you think that it would be best for them to buy everyone out and own the club themselves ?

PMG maybe as they hold leverage over the club in the form of security, although i'd rather any cash VT / TG had was invested in the team. Since the debt does nto yet fall due its probably for the best that any additional investment is put towards the playing side. Unless you are flush with cash, you don't really pay off debts until they fall due.

I thought the Malaysians delivered the best squad for years.
It was DJ who didn’t deliver.

And where is that squad now ?

London, Manchester, Wigan, Glasgow, Derby, Hull.

It failed.

You do have to step back here though. As the man asks, did the malaysians fail to deliver, or DJ who you supported to the end. Hence why I have the issue with the articles title and many others it appears with the tone.

The Malaysians failed, in my opinion, in that they didn't think too much about the reprecussions of not getting promoted. The lack of permanent playing staff, DJ's position being unteneable etc. More guilty of believing what DJ told them, without questioning it or 'putting a rubber on the end of it'.

carl people invest in football clubs because of love and passion for the club not to make a return if they want to make money invest in the stock market

Do you think that it would be best for them to buy everyone out and own the club themselves ?

PMG maybe as they hold leverage over the club in the form of security, although i'd rather any cash VT / TG had was invested in the team. Since the debt does nto yet fall due its probably for the best that any additional investment is put towards the playing side. Unless you are flush with cash, you don't really pay off debts until they fall due.

Damien the debt does fall due now though.

Do you think that it would be best for them to buy everyone out and own the club themselves ?

PMG maybe as they hold leverage over the club in the form of security, although i'd rather any cash VT / TG had was invested in the team. Since the debt does nto yet fall due its probably for the best that any additional investment is put towards the playing side. Unless you are flush with cash, you don't really pay off debts until they fall due.

Damien the debt does fall due now though.

what debt?

carl people invest in football clubs because of love and passion for the club not to make a return if they want to make money invest in the stock market

Steve, where did Vincent Tan's love of Cardiff come from ?

what debt?

both PMG and Langston

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.

carl people invest in football clubs because of love and passion for the club not to make a return if they want to make money invest in the stock market

Steve, where did Vincent Tan's love of Cardiff come from ?

probably the same place as Sheik Mansours or Roman Abramovich...

its the old quote, how do you make £5m from a football club...buy it for £10m

a lot of these people may be investing to make money, but some may actually invest because it may be a hobby, something to do with their millions and billions. I am not making any representations about our investors, just saying why the likes of Sheik Mansour invest in Man City, rebuilding Eastlands for upwards of £1bn. Mansour is never making that back, but he is doing it as it is his hobby.

if it wasnt for the malayians money we be in admin by now

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 debt?

both PMG and Langston

PMG is due in 2013, by which 25% of the debt can be converted to equity.

Langston, (as we know from the court case and the summing of the judge who happens to be a trained legal mind who looked at all the facts presented by both parties) is not due until 2016.

if it wasnt for the malayians money we be in admin by now

absolutely agree and would not say differently, I am thankful.

Do you think that it would be best for them to buy everyone out and own the club themselves ?

PMG maybe as they hold leverage over the club in the form of security, although i'd rather any cash VT / TG had was invested in the team. Since the debt does nto yet fall due its probably for the best that any additional investment is put towards the playing side. Unless you are flush with cash, you don't really pay off debts until they fall due.

Damien the debt does fall due now though.

Carl

why does sam not try through the courts to get his money then.
I for one would love to see it go to court so that once and for all we have total disclosure as to who langston is and then also the issue of sam leaving the club could be sorted out once and for all.
You have a very rose tinted one sided opinion of what went on with sam and the debt based purely on what sam has told you.
im sure paul guy , steve borley and kim walker coulsd give you another version of events.
But its purely speculation because sam will never take it to court now as he has to much to lose

PMG is due in 2013, by which 25% of the debt can be converted to equity.

Langston, (as we know from the court case and the summing of the judge who happens to be a trained legal mind who looked at all the facts presented by both parties) is not due until 2016.

Damien you are using a quote from several years ago, you are obviously an intelligent man you must have read that an agreement was made that Langston could be paid off for an amount less than what would have been due in 2016 had it been settled by Dec 31st 2010.

So do you believe Langston have said ' don't worry about the fact you agreed as a club to pay up by Dec 31st 2010, we will just sit back and wait until 2016'

Why bother with the 3rd agreement ?

PMG maybe as they hold leverage over the club in the form of security, although i'd rather any cash VT / TG had was invested in the team. Since the debt does nto yet fall due its probably for the best that any additional investment is put towards the playing side. Unless you are flush with cash, you don't really pay off debts until they fall due.

Damien the debt does fall due now though.

Carl

why does sam not try through the courts to get his money then.
I for one would love to see it go to court so that once and for all we have total disclosure as to who langston is and then also the issue of sam leaving the club could be sorted out once and for all.
You have a very rose tinted one sided opinion of what went on with sam and the debt based purely on what sam has told you.
im sure paul guy , steve borley and kim walker coulsd give you another version of events.
But its purely speculation because sam will never take it to court now as he has to much to lose

Nobody Steve wants it to go to court, including Borley or the Malaysians, let's be honest.

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.

My understanding of the original agreement to make the Stadium Project Unconditional was that the Council insisted that payment of the Langstone loan note be deffered to September 2016 and that no payment other than interest could be made without the Councils permission.

I'm not saying I know everything about how the High Court would view any other agreements made but Langston agreed to this arrangement so I think there is every chance it remains the over riding document for no other reason than other repayment options did not carry the signature of the Council.

In my opinion there are three stakeholders in this agreement Cardiff City Football Club, Langston and Cardiff County Council and you cannot overstate the power of the Council in this arrangement.

Last edited by castleblue on Thu May 26, 2011 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

carl people invest in football clubs because of love and passion for the club not to make a return if they want to make money invest in the stock market

Steve, where did Vincent Tan's love of Cardiff come from ?

probably the same place as Sheik Mansours or Roman Abramovich...

its the old quote, how do you make £5m from a football club...buy it for £10m

a lot of these people may be investing to make money, but some may actually invest because it may be a hobby, something to do with their millions and billions. I am not making any representations about our investors, just saying why the likes of Sheik Mansour invest in Man City, rebuilding Eastlands for upwards of £1bn. Mansour is never making that back, but he is doing it as it is his hobby.

i dont think the malaysians love or care about cardiff or did sam and no one should go it to football expecting to make money that why sam if he loves the club as much as carl and annis say he do he should take his loan notes and f**k off and never step foot in our club again

Damien you are using a quote from several years ago, you are obviously an intelligent man you must have read that an agreement was made that Langston could be paid off for an amount less than what would have been due in 2016 had it been settled by Dec 31st 2010.

So do you believe Langston have said ' don't worry about the fact you agreed as a club to pay up by Dec 31st 2010, we will just sit back and wait until 2016'

Why bother with the 3rd agreement ?

where is this 3rd agreement? when was it drafted and signed? why would the club redraft an agreement that puts them in a worse position than the previous one, which was pretty watertight following the judges summing up?

["carlccfc"]
PMG maybe as they hold leverage over the club in the form of security, although i'd rather any cash VT / TG had was invested in the team. Since the debt does nto yet fall due its probably for the best that any additional investment is put towards the playing side. Unless you are flush with cash, you don't really pay off debts until they fall
Damien the debt does fall due now though.



Carl

why does sam not try through the courts to get his money then.
I for one would love to see it go to court so that once and for all we have total disclosure as to who langston is and then also the issue of sam leaving the club could be sorted out once and for all.
You have a very rose tinted one sided opinion of what went on with sam and the debt based purely on what sam has told you.
im sure paul guy , steve borley and kim walker coulsd give you another version of events.
But its purely speculation because sam will never take it to court now as he has to much to lose
Nobody Steve wants it to go to court, including Borley or the Malaysians, let's be honest.






Im not saying they do carl but sam has the most to lose if it does because i believe he will be exposed as langston and that opens up another can of worms with loaning money to yourself etc.

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.