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

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.

But there was a further agreement that is known as loan note 3, that would suggests it overrides all other agreements.

But let's for the purpose of debate say that loan note 2 is the overriding document, as you say there was a condition that stated 2016 was the due date, there were other conditions that have been breached, there for loan note 2 is payable immediately.

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.

Would not loan note 3 override anything then?

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[/quote]

Yea rite steve there all here to make money nothing else and if it busts are club they will only lose money we lose everything they dont feel

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?

I am very glad you asked that question Damien, maybe I can take you back to the beginning of this year when our chief executive admitted that there was a further agreement but not settled.

["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.

Steve, as an unsecured creditor he has no leverage. so he is trying to exert some pressure the only way he can.

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.

Would not loan note 3 override anything then?

Yes it does but if the club claim that loan note 2 is in play that agreement has been breached by failing to adhere to conditions within it.

["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.

Steve, as an unsecured creditor he has no leverage. so he is trying to exert some pressure the only way he can.

i agree totally its a shame people cant see that they are being used for that purpose

But there was a further agreement that is known as loan note 3, that would suggests it overrides all other agreements.

the club doesn't think so, if Langston thought so, they'd pursue through the courts

But let's for the purpose of debate say that loan note 2 is the overriding document, as you say there was a condition that stated 2016 was the due date, there were other conditions that have been breached, there for loan note 2 is payable immediately.

what conditions were breached. I refer back to the learned judge, a more than capable legal mind, who made it clear that the club would have a defence if Langston were to pursue legal remedy. surely if there was a breach the judge would have spotted it. I would assume from that that there is in fact been no breach.

["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.

Steve, as an unsecured creditor he has no leverage. so he is trying to exert some pressure the only way he can.

Of course Langston have Leverage, otherwise the club would not have bothered to negotiate the loan note.

I am very glad you asked that question Damien, maybe I can take you back to the beginning of this year when our chief executive admitted that there was a further agreement but not settled.

when did Jenkins say this...

But there was a further agreement that is known as loan note 3, that would suggests it overrides all other agreements.

the club doesn't think so, if Langston thought so, they'd pursue through the courts

But let's for the purpose of debate say that loan note 2 is the overriding document, as you say there was a condition that stated 2016 was the due date, there were other conditions that have been breached, there for loan note 2 is payable immediately.

what conditions were breached. I refer back to the learned judge, a more than capable legal mind, who made it clear that the club would have a defence if Langston were to pursue legal remedy. surely if there was a breach the judge would have spotted it. I would assume from that that there is in fact been no breach.

You sound as if you want Langston to take it to court.

A more capable mind he may have been but conditions have been breached since the summary judgement case.

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

Would not loan note 3 override anything then
Yes it does but if the club claim that loan note 2 is in play that agreement has been breached by failing to adhere to conditions within it.









carl

i am assuming that sam has shown you these documents on one of your meetings.
whose signatures are on those documents

Of course Langston have Leverage, otherwise the club would not have bothered to negotiate the loan note.

so let me get this correct, as I am struggling to follow...

Langston fail to secure summary judgement on loan note 2 and the judge says teh club has a solid defence, inferring Langston have no reason to make such a spurious and vexatious claim. Ergo no terms have been breached.

The club then decides to go back and renegotiate another agreement with Langston which would put them in a worse position than what they had under loan note 2. Remember, the judge did say the club had a good defence to avoid paying loan note 2 immediately. so why would the club renegotiate a debt payable in 2016 to one payable now?

Last edited by Feedback on Thu May 26, 2011 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But there was a further agreement that is known as loan note 3, that would suggests it overrides all other agreements.

the club doesn't think so, if Langston thought so, they'd pursue through the courts

But let's for the purpose of debate say that loan note 2 is the overriding document, as you say there was a condition that stated 2016 was the due date, there were other conditions that have been breached, there for loan note 2 is payable immediately.

what conditions were breached. I refer back to the learned judge, a more than capable legal mind, who made it clear that the club would have a defence if Langston were to pursue legal remedy. surely if there was a breach the judge would have spotted it. I would assume from that that there is in fact been no breach.

You sound as if you want Langston to take it to court.

A more capable mind he may have been but conditions have been breached since the summary judgement case.

what conditions?

I am very glad you asked that question Damien, maybe I can take you back to the beginning of this year when our chief executive admitted that there was a further agreement but not settled.

when did Jenkins say this...

The turn of the year

Carl, we have so many creditors, and big secured ones at that, that his leverage really is diminished.

If not he would have already taken it back to court.

You make a good point about the club negotiating though. I suspect the Malaysians know how weak Sam's position is, otherwise they would have lived up to the settlement of that negotiation. Why didn't they?

I am very glad you asked that question Damien, maybe I can take you back to the beginning of this year when our chief executive admitted that there was a further agreement but not settled.

when did Jenkins say this...

The turn of the year

I gathered that from the original post...any evidence to back this up...

Of course Langston have Leverage, otherwise the club would not have bothered to negotiate the loan note.

so let me get this correct, as I am struggling to follow...

Langston fail to secure summary judgement on loan note 2 and the judge says teh club has a solid defence, inferring Langston have no reason to make such a spurious and vexatious claim. Ergo no terms have been breached.

The club then decides to go back and renegotiate another agreement with Langston which would put them in a worse position than what they had under loan note 2. Remember, the judge did say the club had a good defence to avoid paying loan note 2 immediately. so why would the club renegotiate a debt payable in 2016 to one payable now?

To be able to repay at a reduced amount, which is known as loan note 3.

when did Jenkins say this...

The turn of the year

I gathered that from the original post...any evidence to back this up...

Yes but I am looking for the link for you.

i remember watching him saying there was a new agreement so why do you need a link carls not a blagger

Of course Langston have Leverage, otherwise the club would not have bothered to negotiate the loan note.

so let me get this correct, as I am struggling to follow...

Langston fail to secure summary judgement on loan note 2 and the judge says teh club has a solid defence, inferring Langston have no reason to make such a spurious and vexatious claim. Ergo no terms have been breached.

The club then decides to go back and renegotiate another agreement with Langston which would put them in a worse position than what they had under loan note 2. Remember, the judge did say the club had a good defence to avoid paying loan note 2 immediately. so why would the club renegotiate a debt payable in 2016 to one payable now?

To be able to repay at a reduced amount, which is known as loan note 3.

So this new loan note deal reduces the amount payable but actually brings the payment date forward, keeping the debt unsecured. If that's the case then yes I can well and truly believe it, what I can't believe is that Langston would have signed it if true. The debt is unsecured, Langston have no leverage, to suggest otherwise is madness. honestly, take it from people who do this for a living.

Yes but I am looking for the link for you.

forget the link ,after you told me the debt was reduced I've heard all i need.

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?

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

Carl is right onthat one, Jenkins said it

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

hilarious

do you take everything someone says on the internet as being fact?

On Feb 5th 2010

Gethin Jenkins Told The South Wales Echo

“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."

I cannot find a link but that is his exact quote.

Carl is right onthat one, Jenkins said it

did Jenkins also mention the terms of the new agreement?

Yes but I am looking for the link for you.

forget the link ,after you told me the debt was reduced I've heard all i need.

Good grief Feedback. Even I knew the debt was reduced. You been living in a time warp or something?

I think it was reduced down to £10 million from what £24 million but it had to be paid by December 2010. I also think there was a payment instalemt of £800K roughly a month over 12 months. Something like that.

On Feb 5th 2010

Gethin Jenkins Told The South Wales Echo

“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."

I cannot find a link but that is his exact quote.

So where does that leave the Loan note 2 theory and it's due date of 2016 ?