UPDATED ' COURT CASE WITH VINCENT TAN NOW NEXT '

The clubs barrister would have advised the club if they have no case.
He would be advising them to settle out of court.sell marshal and noone debt paid.

Do you honestly believe Tan listens to advice?

They know they've lost this case,but Tan wants to have the last word by making out that Sam is threatening to to put our club in admin etc.

he just wants it in black and white that Sam is Langston for some reason, if the club had no case then the judgement would of been granted yesterday

Wez, Ive always said from the beginning Sam put Langston together, which in my opinion was a group of Lebanese business men incl Sams brother.

At the meeting at the Mac Donnel Hotel I asked Sam if Langston involved him or his family or if they were acting as guarantors and he flatly denied it.

I think he was lying.
Like you I think Ned is involved.

My mate spoke to Ned toward the time when things were getting nervy and Ned said to him something along the line that he was worried that Sam was gambling with the family money.

Can someone please explain what is different now from 6 years ago ( or whenever it was), when the court wouldn't give Sunmary Judgement to Langston without knowing who they are ?

Looks to me like Tan had a deal with Sam, but then something pissed him off regarding Sam, so knowing that Sam for whatever reason will not ( or cannot because there is something dodgy behind it) disclose who Langston are decided to make life difficult for him.

It's better than Corrie

Summary Judgements are granted when there is no real prospect of respondent (in this case Tan/CCFC) mounting a defence with any prospect of success. Usually the test is whether the defence is frivolous or simply doesn’t exist.

In 2008 the Judge said that if the case went to full trial then there was a prospect of Sam Hammam being outed as Langston.

However, that wasn’t the reason why the Summary Judgement was not granted as the club had a defence against the claim that they had breached the agreement made up in 2006/7.

Of course none of this was ever tested because the Judge also stated that both sides should sit down and come to an agreement by 1st January 2010. From what I remember the club repaid Langston £1m around that time before that agreement was also broken.

Vincent Tan then made a new agreement to repay the Langston debt in 2013 and that is the one in dispute now. The club are in breach of contract (the payments have stopped) and must now mount a defence to show why they have done this

It is my belief that this time they will struggle with the outing of Sam as Langston unless there was some clause in the agreement saying that Sam had to give information to the club. As the club have failed to lodge a defence so far then a Summary Judgement will be granted if they don’t. If their defence is simply Sam is Langston then that would seem very frivolous and again a Summary Judgement could be granted.

Hi Tony,
My memory is a bit vague of it, but I'm sure the lack of knowledge as to who Langston were was cited by the judge who iirc was actually quite scathing and dismissive about it.
It's not important enough to research though

The clubs barrister would have advised the club if they have no case.
He would be advising them to settle out of court.sell marshal and noone debt paid.

Do you honestly believe Tan listens to advice?

They know they've lost this case,but Tan wants to have the last word by making out that Sam is threatening to to put our club in admin etc.

he just wants it in black and white that Sam is Langston for some reason, if the club had no case then the judgement would of been granted yesterday

Wez, Ive always said from the beginning Sam put Langston together, which in my opinion was a group of Lebanese business men incl Sams brother.

At the meeting at the Mac Donnel Hotel I asked Sam if Langston involved him or his family or if they were acting as guarantors and he flatly denied it.

I think he was lying.
Like you I think Ned is involved.

My mate spoke to Ned toward the time when things were getting nervy and Ned said to him something along the line that he was worried that Sam was gambling with the family money.

Tim, our beliefs on this are the same.

Tan will eventually pay but not before he makes Sam squirm a bit and show him to be a liar.

The money means sweet f a to Tan its all about face and principle.

Hopefully this time next week its all over,Sam can then f off and we are all happier.

Let's not forget it was Tan that gave us all a season in the promised land albeit for only one season. If Sam had put a fraction in that Tan has we may have done it years ago.

Do we know if Langstone passed the payments onto Sam.

Will Sam be in court?

Is that really relevant? The money is owed to Langston and there is a contract in place to pay off what is owed.

If the money was then given to Sam or donated to save the whale it's their money and up to them.

Provided the money is not used wrongly (such as tax avoidance) then they have done nothing wrong.

If Sam is Langston though, would it not have been illegal for himself (Langston) to lend himself (as owner of Cardiff City fc) money & then charge high rates of interest?

Do we know if Langstone passed the payments onto Sam.

Will Sam be in court?

Is that really relevant? The money is owed to Langston and there is a contract in place to pay off what is owed.

If the money was then given to Sam or donated to save the whale it's their money and up to them.

Provided the money is not used wrongly (such as tax avoidance) then they have done nothing wrong.

If Sam is Langston though, would it not have been illegal for himself (Langston) to lend himself (as owner of Cardiff City fc) money & then charge high rates of interest?

That's what I think

I'm not an expert on this so I ask what would be the best outcome from all of this?

Do we know if Langstone passed the payments onto Sam.

Will Sam be in court?

Is that really relevant? The money is owed to Langston and there is a contract in place to pay off what is owed.

If the money was then given to Sam or donated to save the whale it's their money and up to them.

Provided the money is not used wrongly (such as tax avoidance) then they have done nothing wrong.

If Sam is Langston though, would it not have been illegal for himself (Langston) to lend himself (as owner of Cardiff City fc) money & then charge high rates of interest?

That is a fallacy owners lend their companies money all the time, at the moment our present major shareholder (Vincent Tan) has loaned Cardiff City over £100m. Also Borley, Isaac and PMG have also loaned the club money at above base interest rate.

This is just one of those urban myths which build up over time but have no basis.

Do we know if Langstone passed the payments onto Sam.

Will Sam be in court?

Is that really relevant? The money is owed to Langston and there is a contract in place to pay off what is owed.

If the money was then given to Sam or donated to save the whale it's their money and up to them.

Provided the money is not used wrongly (such as tax avoidance) then they have done nothing wrong.

If Sam is Langston though, would it not have been illegal for himself (Langston) to lend himself (as owner of Cardiff City fc) money & then charge high rates of interest?

r
But others on here want you to believe Langston never charged us any interest

Can someone please explain what is different now from 6 years ago ( or whenever it was), when the court wouldn't give Sunmary Judgement to Langston without knowing who they are ?

Looks to me like Tan had a deal with Sam, but then something pissed him off regarding Sam, so knowing that Sam for whatever reason will not ( or cannot because there is something dodgy behind it) disclose who Langston are decided to make life difficult for him.

It's better than Corrie

Summary Judgements are granted when there is no real prospect of respondent (in this case Tan/CCFC) mounting a defence with any prospect of success. Usually the test is whether the defence is frivolous or simply doesn’t exist.

In 2008 the Judge said that if the case went to full trial then there was a prospect of Sam Hammam being outed as Langston.

However, that wasn’t the reason why the Summary Judgement was not granted as the club had a defence against the claim that they had breached the agreement made up in 2006/7.

Of course none of this was ever tested because the Judge also stated that both sides should sit down and come to an agreement by 1st January 2010. From what I remember the club repaid Langston £1m around that time before that agreement was also broken.

Vincent Tan then made a new agreement to repay the Langston debt in 2013 and that is the one in dispute now. The club are in breach of contract (the payments have stopped) and must now mount a defence to show why they have done this

It is my belief that this time they will struggle with the outing of Sam as Langston unless there was some clause in the agreement saying that Sam had to give information to the club. As the club have failed to lodge a defence so far then a Summary Judgement will be granted if they don’t. If their defence is simply Sam is Langston then that would seem very frivolous and again a Summary Judgement could be granted.

Hi Tony,
My memory is a bit vague of it, but I'm sure the lack of knowledge as to who Langston were was cited by the judge who iirc was actually quite scathing and dismissive about it.
It's not important enough to research though

Hi Tim

Being a complete nerd I still have a copy of the 2008 Summary Judgement.

This is the only reference to Sam/Langston

"The Club’s evidence discloses a real prospect that it will be established at trial
that Langston’s governing mind and will at all material times was that of a Mr Sam
Hammam. He was until 20th October 2006 also a director of the Club and until
December 2006 the majority beneficial owner of the Club through its parent company
Cardiff City Holdings Limited and its majority shareholder Rudgwick Limited. The
Club’s evidence shows that Mr Hammam was actively involved in the management of
the Club’s affairs, and in particular its participation in the Project during the period
prior to and including the negotiation of the 2006 Agreement."

Justice Briggs wasn't actually making any comment on Sam/Langston, only that the club had a real prospect it would establish Langston's governing mind was Sam. This hasn't anything to do with doing something legal as any owner can lend their company money and charge interest e.g. Tan, Borley, Isaacs and PMG.

The 2008 Summary Judgement is a lengthy legal waffle but basically it came down to whether there had been novation (that means the substitution of one party to a contract with another and terminating the original contract) of a particular obligation under a contract containing other obligations, which were not novated, did not necessarily constitute a termination of the contract itself. In English that means that Devco took over part of the original agreement reached with the council in 2004 (the actual building of the stadium/retail park) whilst other obligations (House of Sport, Athletics Stadium) stayed with the club. What Langston argued was this terminated the original contract.

What the club were relying on was that they could prove that Sam knew fully well that Devo were to take over the stadium project because he had been part of the 2006 negotiations and hence Langston knew as well. It has nothing to do with money laundering or charging illegal interest charges.

Do we know if Langstone passed the payments onto Sam.

Will Sam be in court?

Is that really relevant? The money is owed to Langston and there is a contract in place to pay off what is owed.

If the money was then given to Sam or donated to save the whale it's their money and up to them.

Provided the money is not used wrongly (such as tax avoidance) then they have done nothing wrong.

If Sam is Langston though, would it not have been illegal for himself (Langston) to lend himself (as owner of Cardiff City fc) money & then charge high rates of interest?

r
But others on here want you to believe Langston never charged us any interest

Langston/Sam did charge the club interest, however they never physically collected it and wrote it off.

Do we know if Langstone passed the payments onto Sam.

Will Sam be in court?

Is that really relevant? The money is owed to Langston and there is a contract in place to pay off what is owed.

If the money was then given to Sam or donated to save the whale it's their money and up to them.

Provided the money is not used wrongly (such as tax avoidance) then they have done nothing wrong.

If Sam is Langston though, would it not have been illegal for himself (Langston) to lend himself (as owner of Cardiff City fc) money & then charge high rates of interest?

r
But others on here want you to believe Langston never charged us any interest

Langston/Sam did charge the club interest, however they never physically collected it and wrote it off.

But are you saying Langston put £24million as loan into Cardiff city
I seem to remember on here it was less but has grown to £24 million through interest and re negotiation of the existing loans which were not as much as £24 million

I believe at one time it was only £16 million we had to pay back

Do we know if Langstone passed the payments onto Sam.

Will Sam be in court?

Is that really relevant? The money is owed to Langston and there is a contract in place to pay off what is owed.

If the money was then given to Sam or donated to save the whale it's their money and up to them.

Provided the money is not used wrongly (such as tax avoidance) then they have done nothing wrong.

If Sam is Langston though, would it not have been illegal for himself (Langston) to lend himself (as owner of Cardiff City fc) money & then charge high rates of interest?

r
But others on here want you to believe Langston never charged us any interest

Langston/Sam did charge the club interest, however they never physically collected it and wrote it off.

But are you saying Langston put £24million as loan into Cardiff city
I seem to remember on here it was less but has grown to £24 million through interest and re negotiation of the existing loans which were not as much as £24 million

I believe at one time it was only £16 million we had to pay back

The original debt was £24m , which was basically Langston taking over a debt of the same amount that the club owed to Citibank (Citibank were asking for the money back because the club had defaulted on the loan terms). I believe Langston/ Sam agreed to take over the Citibank debt as they were guaranteeing it anyway as the club had no assets to secure it.

As far back as 2006 , the loan from Langston was renegotiated from a straight £24m to the following:-

1) £15m at 7% interest p.a. , none of which was payable until the end of 2016 (capital or interest)
2) Up to £9m payable if the club sold the naming rights to the stadium - no cost to the club , they just had to hand over all the proceeds from the buyer if it happened , which it never did
3) a bonus of £5m if the club got promoted to the Premier within a certain time period (which it did).

In the 2012/13 season the above agreement was renegotiated again to the following

1) a one-off payment of £15m (which was made)
2) a balance of £7m payable , without interest, by instalments over a 7 year period (initially being paid then stopped)
3) a dropping of the claim to the naming rights

Do we know if Langstone passed the payments onto Sam.

Will Sam be in court?

Is that really relevant? The money is owed to Langston and there is a contract in place to pay off what is owed.

If the money was then given to Sam or donated to save the whale it's their money and up to them.

Provided the money is not used wrongly (such as tax avoidance) then they have done nothing wrong.

If Sam is Langston though, would it not have been illegal for himself (Langston) to lend himself (as owner of Cardiff City fc) money & then charge high rates of interest?

r
But others on here want you to believe Langston never charged us any interest

Langston/Sam did charge the club interest, however they never physically collected it and wrote it off.

But are you saying Langston put £24million as loan into Cardiff city
I seem to remember on here it was less but has grown to £24 million through interest and re negotiation of the existing loans which were not as much as £24 million

I believe at one time it was only £16 million we had to pay back

The original debt was £24m , which was basically Langston taking over a debt of the same amount that the club owed to Citibank (Citibank were asking for the money back because the club had defaulted on the loan terms). I believe Langston/ Sam agreed to take over the Citibank debt as they were guaranteeing it anyway as the club had no assets to secure it.

As far back as 2006 , the loan from Langston was renegotiated from a straight £24m to the following:-

1) £15m at 7% interest p.a. , none of which was payable until the end of 2016 (capital or interest)
2) Up to £9m payable if the club sold the naming rights to the stadium - no cost to the club , they just had to hand over all the proceeds from the buyer if it happened , which it never did
3) a bonus of £5m if the club got promoted to the Premier within a certain time period (which it did).

In the 2012/13 season the above agreement was renegotiated again to the following

1) a one-off payment of £15m (which was made)
2) a balance of £7m payable , without interest, by instalments over a 7 year period (initially being paid then stopped)
3) a dropping of the claim to the naming rights

How much have lanstone received over the course of this saga so far ? I know we made payment in the risdale days and then stoped and the 15 million and promotion bonus but have we made more ?

Do we know if Langstone passed the payments onto Sam.

Will Sam be in court?

Is that really relevant? The money is owed to Langston and there is a contract in place to pay off what is owed.

If the money was then given to Sam or donated to save the whale it's their money and up to them.

Provided the money is not used wrongly (such as tax avoidance) then they have done nothing wrong.

If Sam is Langston though, would it not have been illegal for himself (Langston) to lend himself (as owner of Cardiff City fc) money & then charge high rates of interest?

r
But others on here want you to believe Langston never charged us any interest

Langston/Sam did charge the club interest, however they never physically collected it and wrote it off.

But are you saying Langston put £24million as loan into Cardiff city
I seem to remember on here it was less but has grown to £24 million through interest and re negotiation of the existing loans which were not as much as £24 million

I believe at one time it was only £16 million we had to pay back

The original debt was £24m , which was basically Langston taking over a debt of the same amount that the club owed to Citibank (Citibank were asking for the money back because the club had defaulted on the loan terms). I believe Langston/ Sam agreed to take over the Citibank debt as they were guaranteeing it anyway as the club had no assets to secure it.

As far back as 2006 , the loan from Langston was renegotiated from a straight £24m to the following:-

1) £15m at 7% interest p.a. , none of which was payable until the end of 2016 (capital or interest)
2) Up to £9m payable if the club sold the naming rights to the stadium - no cost to the club , they just had to hand over all the proceeds from the buyer if it happened , which it never did
3) a bonus of £5m if the club got promoted to the Premier within a certain time period (which it did).

In the 2012/13 season the above agreement was renegotiated again to the following

1) a one-off payment of £15m (which was made)
2) a balance of £7m payable , without interest, by instalments over a 7 year period (initially being paid then stopped)
3) a dropping of the claim to the naming rights

I forgot to add in the previous post that all of the current directors of Cardiff City Football Club (Holdings) Limited were also directors at the time of the 31 May 2013 accounts which contains these details and which were signed off by Simon Lim on behalf of the board in December 2013. They were therefore fully aware of the existence of this new agreement and should have been (if they were carrying out their directors ` duties properly) fully aware of its details.

How much have lanstone received over the course of this saga so far ? I know we made payment in the risdale days and then stoped and the 15 million and promotion bonus but have we made more ?

Well Langston have received a £15m one off payment and I think around £1.25m in staged payments (£250,000 per quarter) which is estimated because apparently the club still owes £5.75m of the agreed £7m staged payments.

Over course £15m + £7m = £22m.

Not sure on the exact amount but I believe we paid Langston around £1m during the Peter Ridsdale Chairmanship. So the total paid so far is estimated @ £17.25m

Langston/Sam did charge the club interest, however they never physically collected it and wrote it off.

But are you saying Langston put £24million as loan into Cardiff city
I seem to remember on here it was less but has grown to £24 million through interest and re negotiation of the existing loans which were not as much as £24 million

I believe at one time it was only £16 million we had to pay back

The original loan was for £24m paid in 2 tranches during October 2004 (one of £22m and another £2m later on).

Originally the loan attracted interest @ 7% I believe.

Also the loan was to be repaid on 31 December 2011 @ £1.30 for every £1 of stock, which made the £24m worth £30m + interest.

However none of the interest was ever paid as it was written off to allow the 2006 agreement to be considered viable (details in Keith's post)

Even the agreement with Tan only gives Langston £22m and the only other payment was £1m under Ridsdale making a total of £23m. So for all the claims off ripping off Cardiff City Langston would have in the best circumstances only received £23m of the £24m back with not a penny in interest.

Langston/Sam did charge the club interest, however they never physically collected it and wrote it off.

But are you saying Langston put £24million as loan into Cardiff city
I seem to remember on here it was less but has grown to £24 million through interest and re negotiation of the existing loans which were not as much as £24 million

I believe at one time it was only £16 million we had to pay back

The original loan was for £24m paid in 2 tranches during October 2004 (one of £22m and another £2m later on).

Originally the loan attracted interest @ 7% I believe.

Also the loan was to be repaid on 31 December 2011 @ £1.30 for every £1 of stock, which made the £24m worth £30m + interest.

However none of the interest was ever paid as it was written off to allow the 2006 agreement to be considered viable (details in Keith's post)

Even the agreement with Tan only gives Langston £22m and the only other payment was £1m under Ridsdale making a total of £23m. So for all the claims off ripping off Cardiff City Langston would have in the best circumstances only received £23m of the £24m back with not a penny in interest.

How and who was the 24 million debt run up tho ?

Wez ,watch out for tonight's facts on Tan put out on this forum and see what u think then

Wez ,watch out for tonight's facts on Tan put out on this forum and see what u think then

Great

Langston/Sam did charge the club interest, however they never physically collected it and wrote it off.

But are you saying Langston put £24million as loan into Cardiff city
I seem to remember on here it was less but has grown to £24 million through interest and re negotiation of the existing loans which were not as much as £24 million

I believe at one time it was only £16 million we had to pay back

The original loan was for £24m paid in 2 tranches during October 2004 (one of £22m and another £2m later on).

Originally the loan attracted interest @ 7% I believe.

Also the loan was to be repaid on 31 December 2011 @ £1.30 for every £1 of stock, which made the £24m worth £30m + interest.

However none of the interest was ever paid as it was written off to allow the 2006 agreement to be considered viable (details in Keith's post)

Even the agreement with Tan only gives Langston £22m and the only other payment was £1m under Ridsdale making a total of £23m. So for all the claims off ripping off Cardiff City Langston would have in the best circumstances only received £23m of the £24m back with not a penny in interest.

How and who was the 24 million debt run up tho ?

The money was spent on the playing staff both wages and transfer fees plus millions spent on getting the new stadium project up and running.

Langston/Sam did charge the club interest, however they never physically collected it and wrote it off.

But are you saying Langston put £24million as loan into Cardiff city
I seem to remember on here it was less but has grown to £24 million through interest and re negotiation of the existing loans which were not as much as £24 million

I believe at one time it was only £16 million we had to pay back

The original loan was for £24m paid in 2 tranches during October 2004 (one of £22m and another £2m later on).

Originally the loan attracted interest @ 7% I believe.

Also the loan was to be repaid on 31 December 2011 @ £1.30 for every £1 of stock, which made the £24m worth £30m + interest.

However none of the interest was ever paid as it was written off to allow the 2006 agreement to be considered viable (details in Keith's post)

Even the agreement with Tan only gives Langston £22m and the only other payment was £1m under Ridsdale making a total of £23m. So for all the claims off ripping off Cardiff City Langston would have in the best circumstances only received £23m of the £24m back with not a penny in interest.

Not quite true though is it ,
If the naming rights gamble had paid off Langston would have got another £9 million ,
Or shall we just forget that bit

They've been paid a 5 million promotion bonus to remember that

They've been paid a 5 million promotion bonus to remember that

Shssss wez stop bringing up facts that don't suit all on here

Langston/Sam did charge the club interest, however they never physically collected it and wrote it off.

But are you saying Langston put £24million as loan into Cardiff city
I seem to remember on here it was less but has grown to £24 million through interest and re negotiation of the existing loans which were not as much as £24 million

I believe at one time it was only £16 million we had to pay back

The original loan was for £24m paid in 2 tranches during October 2004 (one of £22m and another £2m later on).

Originally the loan attracted interest @ 7% I believe.

Also the loan was to be repaid on 31 December 2011 @ £1.30 for every £1 of stock, which made the £24m worth £30m + interest.

However none of the interest was ever paid as it was written off to allow the 2006 agreement to be considered viable (details in Keith's post)

Even the agreement with Tan only gives Langston £22m and the only other payment was £1m under Ridsdale making a total of £23m. So for all the claims off ripping off Cardiff City Langston would have in the best circumstances only received £23m of the £24m back with not a penny in interest.

Not quite true though is it ,
If the naming rights gamble had paid off Langston would have got another £9 million ,
Or shall we just forget that bit

Langston were never paid the £9m naming rights

They've been paid a 5 million promotion bonus to remember that

I'm pretty sure Langston didn't receive that either.

They've been paid a 5 million promotion bonus to remember that

I'm pretty sure Langston didn't receive that either.

Keith confirmed they did earlier in this thread or another one they had been paid it so have had there money back already

Langston/Sam did charge the club interest, however they never physically collected it and wrote it off.

But are you saying Langston put £24million as loan into Cardiff city
I seem to remember on here it was less but has grown to £24 million through interest and re negotiation of the existing loans which were not as much as £24 million

I believe at one time it was only £16 million we had to pay back

The original loan was for £24m paid in 2 tranches during October 2004 (one of £22m and another £2m later on).

Originally the loan attracted interest @ 7% I believe.

Also the loan was to be repaid on 31 December 2011 @ £1.30 for every £1 of stock, which made the £24m worth £30m + interest.

However none of the interest was ever paid as it was written off to allow the 2006 agreement to be considered viable (details in Keith's post)

Even the agreement with Tan only gives Langston £22m and the only other payment was £1m under Ridsdale making a total of £23m. So for all the claims off ripping off Cardiff City Langston would have in the best circumstances only received £23m of the £24m back with not a penny in interest.

Not quite true though is it ,
If the naming rights gamble had paid off Langston would have got another £9 million ,
Or shall we just forget that bit

Langston were never paid the £9m naming rights

read what I said numpty i said IF the naming rightsvgamble came off they WOULD of had another £9 million
they did have a £5 million promotion pay off though

Langston were never paid the £9m naming rights

read what I said numpty i said IF the naming rightsvgamble came off they WOULD of had another £9 million
they did have a £5 million promotion pay off though

The loan notes were converted in 2006 from £24m cash to £15m cash + up to £9m in stadium naming rights so that the stadium project would be financially viable. Do you really believe they would have ever got anything near £9m in naming rights? Swansea Council got £250,000 for the Liberty so what makes you think someone out there was willing to pay £8,750,000 more for Cardiff City Stadium? Also if these cash rich sponsors were willing to pay that then why hasn't VT sold them?

Also I believe you are incorrect about the £6m promotion bonus as that formed part of the old agreement not the new one agreed in 2013. It was never paid.

Langston were never paid the £9m naming rights

read what I said numpty i said IF the naming rightsvgamble came off they WOULD of had another £9 million
they did have a £5 million promotion pay off though

The loan notes were converted in 2006 from £24m cash to £15m cash + up to £9m in stadium naming rights so that the stadium project would be financially viable. Do you really believe they would have ever got anything near £9m in naming rights? Swansea Council got £250,000 for the Liberty so what makes you think someone out there was willing to pay £8,750,000 more for Cardiff City Stadium? Also if these cash rich sponsors were willing to pay that then why hasn't VT sold them?

Also I believe you are incorrect about the £6m promotion bonus as that formed part of the old agreement not the new one agreed in 2013. It was never paid.

5 million promotion bonus was paid ask Kieth it's in the accounts apparently