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

Carl, really not happy as a City fan having Sam Hammam's name up in lights in the papers.
I'm sure he's a lovely chap on a one-to-one level but under his stewardship Wimbledon went out of existance and there is/was insurmountable evidance that the same would've become of Cardiff City Football Club.

"We have much to thank Sam Hammam for, given the fact he came into our club and paid off all our debts and took us from the bottom of League Two to the very top and six points clear of the Championship, he gave us a reason to dare to dream."

He didn't take us there personally. I think it was a god-send that we won that Play-Off Final vs. Q.P.R. as I really don't think we'd be in existance now had we not won that game. Earnshaw would probably have gone... And after the signing of Campbell for £1m, I have no confidence that a good replacement would've been brought in. We were lucky to go up that year. If that didn't come off, no new stadium, no Bothroyd, Bellamy, Chopra... No Cardiff City.

I hope the Malaysians do only what is sustainable for Cardiff. It's great to be in the position we are now, and I know deep down that without dicing with death when Hammam was lavishly putting the club into debt, then we probably wouldn't have moved up the football ladder as quickly as we have. But living beyond the clubs means would've spelt disaster. Only need to look at Plymouth, Portsmouth, Leeds, Bradford City, Wrexham and more often than not the careless spending ends in disaster.

I think Cardiff City Football Club has been a very lucky girl to survive.

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.

Here carl http://www.walesonline.co.uk/cardiffonl ... -28117331/

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.

where in there does it say the deal becomes null and void if the date of 31 December is missed or where does it say all the loan note becomes repayable immediately.

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.

Bakedalakser

I'm questioning the angle that it is repayable immediately in full and reverts back to the full £24m, I've just gone about it in an indirect way

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 ?

at the end of the day its all speculation unless you can see a copy of the agreement with signatures on and in realty at this moment in time the malaysians have a 40% share of the debt whilst the other shareholders hold 60% between them.

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.

where in there does it say the deal becomes null and void if the date of 31 December is missed or where does it say all the loan note becomes repayable immediately.

Having reread that he has a fair point... Jenks just says they agreed t o extend the deadline, not that a new agreement was signed.

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 ?

at the end of the day its all speculation unless you can see a copy of the agreement with signatures on and in realty at this moment in time the malaysians have a 40% share of the debt whilst the other shareholders hold 60% between them.

All of whom are secured creditors.

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 ?

at the end of the day its all speculation unless you can see a copy of the agreement with signatures on and in realty at this moment in time the malaysians have a 40% share of the debt whilst the other shareholders hold 60% between them.

^^^^^^^^^^

this, its all conjecture. we have no idea what the terms of the current agreement is, whether its a wholly new agreement or whether its an amendment of the second agreement.

I'm questioning the angle that it is repayable immediately in full and reverts back to the full £24m, I've just gone about it in an indirect way

Well unless we see the contents of the loan I dont hink we can answer your questioning fully. From what I understand loan note 3 conditons was £10 million paid by 31 Dec 2010 be it one payment or £800K pm over 12 months. Failure to do that then the debt reverted back to £24 million BUT no time date to pay.

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.

I don't think you can make the assertion Carl that Loan Note 3 overides everything else because it has not been put to any legal test and I have not seen or heard anything which tells me that Cardiff County Council agreed to the terms. Obviously you can say in your opinion it does and thats fair enough but in my opinion unless it carries the agreement of the Council it is unlikely to be binding in law.

Again I think in relation to loan note 2 that was tested, if only in the summary judgement hearing, but the other breaches alledged did not survive the summary judgement so I think the club are right to believe that is the overiding document.

As I say I'm no legal expert but this is my honest opinion.

I'm questioning the angle that it is repayable immediately in full and reverts back to the full £24m, I've just gone about it in an indirect way

Well unless we see the contents of the loan I dont hink we can answer your questioning fully. From what I understand loan note 3 conditons was £10 million paid by 31 Dec 2010 be it one payment or £800K pm over 12 months. Failure to do that then the debt reverted back to £24 million BUT no time date to pay.

Jenkins said an agreement was reached, not that a new agreement was signed. the two are different.

again I go back to why would the club renegotiate a debt to be payable at the end of 2010 when it was not due until 2016?

I'm questioning the angle that it is repayable immediately in full and reverts back to the full £24m, I've just gone about it in an indirect way

Well unless we see the contents of the loan I dont hink we can answer your questioning fully. From what I understand loan note 3 conditons was £10 million paid by 31 Dec 2010 be it one payment or £800K pm over 12 months. Failure to do that then the debt reverted back to £24 million BUT no time date to pay.

Jenkins said an agreement was reached, not that a new agreement was signed. the two are different.

again I go back to why would the club renegotiate a debt to be payable at the end of 2010 when it was not due until 2016?

£14 million saving.

Well I would take it that an agreement reached meant it was signed sealed and delivered. However I have heard the argument that the agreement was not signed but that came from Ridsdale of whom I dont beleive a word from.

I don't think you can make the assertion Carl that Loan Note 3 overides everything else because it has not been put to any legal test and I have not seen or heard anything which tells me that Cardiff County Council agreed to the terms. Obviously you can say in your opinion it does and thats fair enough but in my opinion unless it carries the agreement of the Council it is unlikely to be binding in law.

Nothing has any legal test until it goes through a court.

I jst wonder now if the club would feel confident like they did when they were taken to court over loan note 2?

By Carl Curtis


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballna ... -28765759/

Annis and Carl

I see a number of people on here are using their strong disagreement of what Carl has written to reply with personal insults.

I am not going to join in with that but this article really is very very poor on several counts.

This "leader" tag may not have been of Carls request (I presume it was that of a Sam sycophant with the initials TP?) but it would have been easily avoided if Carl had insisted that each of his articles clearly set out at the beginning that they are just his personal views and carry no more weight than that.

As for the content , it smacks of a further propaganda push for the return of Sam , based only what Sam has said are facts.As you know , I have long been of the opinion that the two of you and this board are increasingly being manipulated by Sam for his own ends.

I know that you and Carl have both claimed to have seen copies of various legal documents shown to you by Sam and have used this as the basis for your posts about it on here.But , with the greatest of respect , neither of you have any training or experience to be able to understand such documents and must therefore be relying on what Sam says they say.

A further issue is that you regularly refer to the club being in breach of clauses in those agreements (but never mention what clauses or what the breaches are) but overlook the fact that Sam himself must be in major breach of the agreements by showing them to you in the first place.

And the Gethin Jenkins quote you refer to in a response later in this thread actually says that the latest contract deadline had been extended if you actually read it without the Sam spin on its meaning.

I do share other posters worries that this board is moving away from its initial laudable aims of providing an alternative place for gossip and discussion of rumours between fans to the official messageboard or Mikes (other than a vehicle to sell books of course ) to a propaganda machine for Sam. Will this chnage back as and when it becomes apparent that he will be allowed no future meaningful role in the club?

By Carl Curtis


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballna ... -28765759/

Annis and Carl

I see a number of people on here are using their strong disagreement of what Carl has written to reply with personal insults.

I am not going to join in with that but this article really is very very poor on several counts.

This "leader" tag may not have been of Carls request (I presume it was that of a Sam sycophant with the initials TP?) but it would have been easily avoided if Carl had insisted that each of his articles clearly set out at the beginning that they are just his personal views and carry no more weight than that.

As for the content , it smacks of a further propaganda push for the return of Sam , based only what Sam has said are facts.As you know , I have long been of the opinion that the two of you and this board are increasingly being manipulated by Sam for his own ends.

I know that you and Carl have both claimed to have seen copies of various legal documents shown to you by Sam and have used this as the basis for your posts about it on here.But , with the greatest of respect , neither of you have any training or experience to be able to understand such documents and must therefore be relying on what Sam says they say.

A further issue is that you regularly refer to the club being in breach of clauses in those agreements (but never mention what clauses or what the breaches are) but overlook the fact that Sam himself must be in major breach of the agreements by showing them to you in the first place.

And the Gethin Jenkins quote you refer to in a response later in this thread actually says that the latest contract deadline had been extended if you actually read it without the Sam spin on its meaning.

I do share other posters worries that this board is moving away from its initial laudable aims of providing an alternative place for gossip and discussion of rumours between fans to the official messageboard or Mikes (other than a vehicle to sell books of course ) to a propaganda machine for Sam. Will this chnage back as and when it becomes apparent that he will be allowed no future meaningful role in the club?

in all fairness keith we are all aware of the pro sam agenda that exists on this board but im puzzled as to what the echo though they would get out of publishing the article in the first place

£14 million saving.

maybe... perhaps any agreement is simply lowering the amount payable, maybe there is no intention to pay at all being as it is unsecured.

Well I would take it that an agreement reached meant it was signed sealed and delivered. However I have heard the argument that the agreement was not signed but that came from Ridsdale of whom I dont beleive a word from.

maybe it was signed, maybe it was not, maybe what was signed was not a new agreement but an addendum to the agreement. we have no idea, all we have is one side who seemingly is not interested in pursuing what they believe to be their legal redress. I can't understand that.

Vincent Tan and TG are the best things to happen to our football club for a very long time. To suggest that it is now time for them to deliver is quite frankly unbelieveable. They have delivered already by saving our Club and by backing DJ to the hilt this season. The fact that HE FAILED is not their fault. I trust them to do the right thing but if it means that they walk away who could blame them. They don't owe us anything. Personally I think they will turn things around because they are hooked on achieving Premiership football and all the massive benefits that they will get on lots of different levels.

I am asking that we have a statement of intent.

Of course they are the best thing, I said as much. I even said the best thing for everybody would be that they owned the club outright and done away with Langston, PMG, Ray Ranson (Sports Assets Group).

If they came out and said that despite failing twice we are fully committed and responsible for the club then I would be happy, I am not asking to see their strategy but to hear that they are here for the long term.

Because heaven forbid I would hate the thought that they said, no more we have had enough and want out.

The basis of your article is clearly to big-up Sam and to support his return to the Club.....and whether you intended it or not you imply criticism of the Malaysians and imply a lack of leadership by them not making a statement of intent. I think that the vast majority of fans are happy with the way the Malaysians have acted since they've come to the Club and your views (because a newspaper is prepared to print them) are given a disproportiate weight which can be taken by the Malaysians that the majority of fans subscribe to them. Personally I don't think that the Malaysians have done anything to warrant any criticism......imlpied or otherwise.

I don't think you can make the assertion Carl that Loan Note 3 overides everything else because it has not been put to any legal test and I have not seen or heard anything which tells me that Cardiff County Council agreed to the terms. Obviously you can say in your opinion it does and thats fair enough but in my opinion unless it carries the agreement of the Council it is unlikely to be binding in law.

Nothing has any legal test until it goes through a court.

I jst wonder now if the club would feel confident like they did when they were taken to court over loan note 2?

Thats my point exactly the only Loan Note that has been tested is loan note 2 £15m + £9m in Stadium Naming rights, as I see it the club is currently paying the 7% interest on the £15m approx £1m per year or £88K per month. The £9m stadium naming rights refer to a maximum figure paid until September 2016 so if nothing is received that £9m is gone forever, if £1m is paid £8m is gone for ever no interest no comeback.

None of us know how confident the club is about going to court but if it was you and you believed that the best opportunity was to pay £10m by 31st December 2010 or risk a court case you would likely lose -What would you do I know what I would do pay up.

The Malaysians didn't therefore something tells me they are not worried about this matter going to court. Again just my opinion.

I don't think you can make the assertion Carl that Loan Note 3 overides everything else because it has not been put to any legal test and I have not seen or heard anything which tells me that Cardiff County Council agreed to the terms. Obviously you can say in your opinion it does and thats fair enough but in my opinion unless it carries the agreement of the Council it is unlikely to be binding in law.

Nothing has any legal test until it goes through a court.

I jst wonder now if the club would feel confident like they did when they were taken to court over loan note 2?

Thats my point exactly the only Loan Note that has been tested is loan note 2 £15m + £9m in Stadium Naming rights, as I see it the club is currently paying the 7% interest on the £15m approx £1m per year or £88K per month. The £9m stadium naming rights refer to a maximum figure paid until September 2016 so if nothing is received that £9m is gone forever, if £1m is paid £8m is gone for ever no interest no comeback.

None of us know how confident the club is about going to court but if it was you and you believed that the best opportunity was to pay £10m by 31st December 2010 or risk a court case you would likely lose -What would you do I know what I would do pay up.

The Malaysians didn't therefore something tells me they are not worried about this matter going to court. Again just my opinion.

and purely castle because they can link sam to langston in my opinion which gives them them the whip hand

£14 million saving.

maybe... perhaps any agreement is simply lowering the amount payable, maybe there is no intention to pay at all being as it is unsecured.

Well I would take it that an agreement reached meant it was signed sealed and delivered. However I have heard the argument that the agreement was not signed but that came from Ridsdale of whom I dont beleive a word from.

maybe it was signed, maybe it was not, maybe what was signed was not a new agreement but an addendum to the agreement. we have no idea, all we have is one side who seemingly is not interested in pursuing what they believe to be their legal redress. I can't understand that.

If you are owed an unsecured debt then go to court and win then it becomes enforceable. How you go about getting your money is another story.

Why Sam does not go down this route, perhaps he might if he does not get his way.

I'm questioning the angle that it is repayable immediately in full and reverts back to the full £24m, I've just gone about it in an indirect way

Well unless we see the contents of the loan I dont hink we can answer your questioning fully. From what I understand loan note 3 conditons was £10 million paid by 31 Dec 2010 be it one payment or £800K pm over 12 months. Failure to do that then the debt reverted back to £24 million BUT no time date to pay.

Jenkins said an agreement was reached, not that a new agreement was signed. the two are different.

again I go back to why would the club renegotiate a debt to be payable at the end of 2010 when it was not due until 2016?

ABSOLUTELY Spot on... 'Agreement has been reached' could be as simple as they have all sat
around the table and said "yep, that sounds good to me!".. that is A MILLION MILES away from
the legal documents being drawn up and signed. A million miles with solicitors/legal advisors/
interested parties ALL having a say along the way. So in effect, no 'real' agreement at all!!!

What pissed me off about the whole article frankly is this "The Malaysians" and then "Sam"
references.

Given the current state of Cardiff City Football club, and given the reason we are still trading
it should be "Vincent Tan and TG"... then "The Lebanese"..

no offence to Sam here, but he has no right to be looked at in some Superhero light. Its "Vinnie
and Teege" who are the incumbent 'savers of the day"... Samuel Hammam has a hell of a lot to
prove to a hell of a lot of people before he should be put up on the same level as the other two!!

The tone of the article implied that 'The Malaysians' should somehow prove themselves, and that
good old dependable, favourite Uncle Sam is waiting and willing to come to the rescue in some way...
Well i hope he is!!!

But right now:

The 'Malaysians' have not let Cardiff City down once

Sam Hammam nearly destroyed our club

Lets not forget that and start trying to somehow 'pressure' VT to come up with some super plan..
So far, so good... which is a damn sight better than we've been for 6 years or so

I say thank god for the TG and VT.

I also don't think they'd be bring prominant people to the club only to walk away.

THEY saved us when no one else would (where was Sam last summer??) and for that WE HAVE NO RIGHT in under a year later to question the way they run our club.

Sam should have appeared last summer if he was to have any credibility.

and purely castle because they can link sam to langston in my opinion which gives them them the whip hand

Why is that Steve, conflict of interest?

By Carl Curtis


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballna ... -28765759/

Annis and Carl

I see a number of people on here are using their strong disagreement of what Carl has written to reply with personal insults.

I am not going to join in with that but this article really is very very poor on several counts.

This "leader" tag may not have been of Carls request (I presume it was that of a Sam sycophant with the initials TP?) but it would have been easily avoided if Carl had insisted that each of his articles clearly set out at the beginning that they are just his personal views and carry no more weight than that.

As for the content , it smacks of a further propaganda push for the return of Sam , based only what Sam has said are facts.As you know , I have long been of the opinion that the two of you and this board are increasingly being manipulated by Sam for his own ends.

I know that you and Carl have both claimed to have seen copies of various legal documents shown to you by Sam and have used this as the basis for your posts about it on here.But , with the greatest of respect , neither of you have any training or experience to be able to understand such documents and must therefore be relying on what Sam says they say.

A further issue is that you regularly refer to the club being in breach of clauses in those agreements (but never mention what clauses or what the breaches are) but overlook the fact that Sam himself must be in major breach of the agreements by showing them to you in the first place.

And the Gethin Jenkins quote you refer to in a response later in this thread actually says that the latest contract deadline had been extended if you actually read it without the Sam spin on its meaning.

I do share other posters worries that this board is moving away from its initial laudable aims of providing an alternative place for gossip and discussion of rumours between fans to the official messageboard or Mikes (other than a vehicle to sell books of course ) to a propaganda machine for Sam. Will this chnage back as and when it becomes apparent that he will be allowed no future meaningful role in the club?

Uh I think you will find there are quite a few posters on here who are opposing Sams return. Ok there are a couple of high profile users on here, that is Carl and Annis, who are going for it big time but there are a few regulars here opposing it.

By Carl Curtis


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballna ... -28765759/

Annis and Carl

I see a number of people on here are using their strong disagreement of what Carl has written to reply with personal insults.

I am not going to join in with that but this article really is very very poor on several counts.

This "leader" tag may not have been of Carls request (I presume it was that of a Sam sycophant with the initials TP?) but it would have been easily avoided if Carl had insisted that each of his articles clearly set out at the beginning that they are just his personal views and carry no more weight than that.

As for the content , it smacks of a further propaganda push for the return of Sam , based only what Sam has said are facts.As you know , I have long been of the opinion that the two of you and this board are increasingly being manipulated by Sam for his own ends.

I know that you and Carl have both claimed to have seen copies of various legal documents shown to you by Sam and have used this as the basis for your posts about it on here.But , with the greatest of respect , neither of you have any training or experience to be able to understand such documents and must therefore be relying on what Sam says they say.

A further issue is that you regularly refer to the club being in breach of clauses in those agreements (but never mention what clauses or what the breaches are) but overlook the fact that Sam himself must be in major breach of the agreements by showing them to you in the first place.

And the Gethin Jenkins quote you refer to in a response later in this thread actually says that the latest contract deadline had been extended if you actually read it without the Sam spin on its meaning.

I do share other posters worries that this board is moving away from its initial laudable aims of providing an alternative place for gossip and discussion of rumours between fans to the official messageboard or Mikes (other than a vehicle to sell books of course ) to a propaganda machine for Sam. Will this chnage back as and when it becomes apparent that he will be allowed no future meaningful role in the club?

Uh I think you will find there are quite a few posters on here who are opposing Sams return. Ok there are a couple of high profile users on here, that is Carl and Annis, who are going for it big time but there are a few regulars here opposing it.

Agreed. Its obviously no secret that Annis, Carl and a few others are 100% behind Sam
coming back. But we should all realise that its because they GENUINELY believe in Sam
Hammam and GENUINELY believe in what he is telling them,, but most of all... because
they think he will be good for Cardiff City Football Club...

The sceptics amongst us will point to the masquerade of a kindly old uncle spending 'more
of my f*cking money until i am f*cking skint"... only to find out the club was up to its
eyeballs in debt when he eventually left.

No way is this board a big "Bring Back Sam" Forum

I personally would sort of like him back, but not as much as id like clarification of exactly
where and what went wrong under his stewardship. The High Court didnt believe him, so
why should i!!

That is some views but now mine I agree with Carl in most he says, and no one knows the truth about what money Sam put in or didnt no one knows how much VT put in or taken out. Its all views not facts.

All I know in all the years I have supported Cardiff City FC the best times were when Sam came to the club .

The facts are when he was there the club was great the kids around south wales started wearing The City shirts instead of so many Man U Liverpool . Also when we were in trouble we didnt have to guess or read message boards he came out and did videos to speak to the supporters to ask them to help like we need to have 13000 at home games even when Black Friday came all the supporters were feeling angry and the police advised Sam to keep away.. Where was he ? outside the entrance of the Bob Bank explaining to all supporters.

When Ridsdale came in then it changed we got told nothing and I feel besides the new stadium it has gone down hill since Sam has left.

How he left he demanded money or the club would have folded but that was the words of Ridsdale all that went on was the words of Ridsdale this is the man who hid away after he conned the supporters.

Sam asked the supporters for support we did, however Ridsdale didnt he said help the club then he would buy players etc however I would have got my season ticket just to help the club as I love Cardiff City and many others would have too but no, Ridsdale had to lie and lie ..

The fact is for me is I enjoyed following City the most under Sam Hamman , we were top of the league and flying then Sam left and well we went down afterwards.. Players liked him too so did it really hurt he interfered as it worked when he was there and we needed him as Jones couldnt get these players going.. but insults again will not solve any issue at Cardiff City but I am happy that supporters like Annis & carl try and get us informed.

Maybe your next piece could simply say - Written by Carl Curtis.

Uh I think you will find there are quite a few posters on here who are opposing Sams return. Ok there are a couple of high profile users on here, that is Carl and Annis, who are going for it big time but there are a few regulars here opposing it.

Agreed. Its obviously no secret that Annis, Carl and a few others are 100% behind Sam
coming back. But we should all realise that its because they GENUINELY believe in Sam
Hammam and GENUINELY believe in what he is telling them,, but most of all... because
they think he will be good for Cardiff City Football Club...

The sceptics amongst us will point to the masquerade of a kindly old uncle spending 'more
of my f*cking money until i am f*cking skint"... only to find out the club was up to its
eyeballs in debt when he eventually left.

No way is this board a big "Bring Back Sam" Forum

I personally would sort of like him back, but not as much as id like clarification of exactly
where and what went wrong under his stewardship. The High Court didnt believe him, so
why should i!!

Thanks for this TA.

There are alot of opinions about this forum that are just not true. Such opinions as "Bring Back Sam", "DJ Out", "tow the party line else your banned", etc etc and it just simply bullshit. Those that are spreading this shit are those that just dont simply obey simple rules like "no consistent belittling or sniping of users". Yes we all do the odd snipe but the ones that get banned are the continual perputrators

Slightly diverting there but these are the guys, the continual snipers, who are going around saying this is a Bring Back Sam forun and that is just utter crap.

Why have people started "attacking" each other ?

We were all bitterly disappointed when we failed to be promoted, and I am guessing that like me everyone wants a quick fix to ease the pain - manager sorted out, new players brought in and a bit of positive hype etc.

I believe that Carl is just expressing his natural fan's feeling that he wants "some action" and soon.

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.