UPDATED ' COURT CASE WITH VINCENT TAN NOW NEXT '

Two things that Paul Abbandonato has got wrong in his article Annis is :

A) it is £5.75m owing not £6.7m

B) Michael Filiou was not unamimously voted off the board in the summer, the club tried but failed in June to do so. Like they also failed to vote Michael Isaac off the holdings company board in December after trying to do that as well. Must be embarrassing for a board meeting to be called twice and the board failing twice to deliver what they wanted to.

Two things that Paul Abbandonato has got wrong in his article Annis is :

A) it is £5.75m owing not £6.7m

B) Michael Filiou was not unamimously voted off the board in the summer, the club tried but failed in June to do so. Like they also failed to vote Michael Isaac off the holdings company board in December after trying to do that as well. Must be embarrassing for a board meeting to be called twice and the board failing twice to deliver what they wanted to.

I thought so Carlos, but actually could not be that bothered to read their full article.

Also thats embarrassing for Tan as well.

Well im just sooooooooo excited to see who, s mate comes out on top

Wez/ tan

annis / sam oops langston

Well im just sooooooooo excited to see who, s mate comes out on top

Wez/ tan

annis / sam oops langston

Well im just sooooooooo excited to see who, s mate comes out on top

Wez/ tan

annis / sam oops langston

Well im just sooooooooo excited to see who, s mate comes out on top

Wez/ tan

annis / sam oops langston

Club/tan over Sam ,any day

Well im just sooooooooo excited to see who, s mate comes out on top

Wez/ tan

annis / sam oops langston

Club/tan over Sam ,any day

Tans not Cardiff City, for me he is the destroyer of the Real Cardiff City.

And the proof is there by our attendances and how the old die hards feel nowadays, plus all those who had to endure the stripping of our identity and Tans circus.

Of course Wez, you never had to endure that and I can tell you now it was soul destroying.

Well im just sooooooooo excited to see who, s mate comes out on top

Wez/ tan

annis / sam oops langston

Club/tan over Sam ,any day

Tans not Cardiff City, for me he is the destroyer of the Real Cardiff City.

And the proof is there by our attendances and how the old die hards feel nowadays, plus all those who had to endure the stripping of our identity and Tans circus.

Unfortunately I don't think either of these gentleman really give a flying f**k about Cardiff City or it's fans.

On the way to the game yesterday we were talking about this and wondered when we would hear more. Unless Tan has a right old rabbit in the hat it is hard to understand how he hopes to defend this?

The 2008 Court case has nothing to do with this dispute as a new agreement was drawn up 2 years ago. So the issue has to be a breach of contract on the behalf of Tan unless he has some very compelling evidence we don't know about.

Tony, I honestly see Tan losing this as he signed and spent over a £1mill looking for any wrong doings.

Tan tried to not pay the Riddler,DJ,Ole etc and all have now been paid.

Its going to be interesting and I would like it finally over once and for all, for the good of Cardiff City, No one else

Annis same here the Langston issue has hung around for far too long now. It is hard to believe but under the old agreement Langston had to be paid in full by this New Year's Eve (2016) and that agreement was made 2004!

The only reason I can think is by delaying payment to Langston the monies saved would not count as expenditure for the club in the accounts. The reason was to portray the club as profitable and hence Financial Fair Play and avoiding a transfer embargo.

Complete speculation on my part but if that is the case then Tan should start repaying as he will lose in court and Langston will be awarded damages including Consequential loss like interest etc.

Tony

The balance of the debt due to Langston is being carried as a debt in the balance sheet so nothing to do with expenditure levels or FFP.

Keith

Well im just sooooooooo excited to see who, s mate comes out on top

Wez/ tan

annis / sam oops langston

Club/tan over Sam ,any day

Tans not Cardiff City, for me he is the destroyer of the Real Cardiff City.

And the proof is there by our attendances and how the old die hards feel nowadays, plus all those who had to endure the stripping of our identity and Tans circus.

Of course Wez, you never had to endure that and I can tell you now it was soul destroying.

In that case nor was Sam ? Or any other owner ,move on Annis we are back in blue now ,where's the no blue no renew crew ? Most have flown the nest

Annis

Two questions

1) where is the hearing being held ( I.e. which High Court ?)

2) who are Langston suing? Is it Vincent Tan personally, Cardiff City Football Club Limited or it's Holding company?

If I have the details, I might either attend myself if in London on Tuesday or ask one of my colleagues in my London office to do so.

Keith, Ive not really asked just know its in London.

Langston have put Vincent Tans name on the suing,but of course Cardiff City are also on the writ,


The South Wales Echo have now copied our article



Cardiff City FC set for £6.7million High Court battle with former owner Sam Hammam this week
13:39, 24 JAN 2016


BY PAUL ABBANDONATO

Hammam and Bluebirds in fresh legal dispute as thorny issue of Langston loan notes rears its head once more with court case pending on Tuesday


Vincent Tan and Sam Hammam are set to have their respective views represented in the High Court

Cardiff City's historical battle with former owner Sam Hammam over the controversial Langston loan notes is set to hit the High Court again this week.

WalesOnline understands Hammam is demanding payment of what he claims is an outstanding £6.7million sum and the matter will go before a judge in London.


The Bluebirds have previously held back on certain payments while they have demanded to know more about the identity of Swiss-based company Langston.

We understand the Bluebirds hierarchy are hoping the court case gives them the opportunity to nail down the detail they are seeking.



The matter comes to a head six months after Michael Filiou, Hammam's representative on the Cardiff board, was unanimously voted off last summer. He had spent two years as a Bluebirds director.

The original debt of £24m was in the form of loan notes issued by The Langston Corporation when Hammam was owner of the club. It was an issue for Vincent Tan when he took charge of the club himself.

In 2013 Cardiff and Hammam announced an amicable resolution to the debt issue, with £15m to be paid up front, the rest in quarterly installments, Hammam getting a role with the club as part of the settlement and Filiou taking up a seat on the board.

However, the matter has subsequently stalled and Hammam is believed to be asking for the remainder of the £6.7m to be paid.

Bluebirds lawyers will be in court to forcibly argue the case on behalf of the club. Neither owner Tan, chairman Mehmet Dalman nor chief executive Ken Choo are expected to be present.

Cardiff City chiefs spent nearly £3million on agents feesCardiff City chairman Mehmet Dalman wants to know more about Langston
Dalman has previously defended the club stalling on some quarterly payments to Langston, saying: “It is bad governance not knowing who is the owner of a debt we are trying to honour. Right at the moment I want to know who it is.”

Cardiff hope the High Court case gives them that opportunity as the ongoing saga takes yet another twist, while Hammam's lawyers will argue for payment.

Annis , Sam must have told you about the court hearing so ask him for the details.

As for the Echo report, I fell out with PA some time ago when he was so supportive of the rebrand and
Tried to suppress any support of the paper for the campaign for a return to blue.

Well im just sooooooooo excited to see who, s mate comes out on top

Wez/ tan

annis / sam oops langston

Club/tan over Sam ,any day

Tans not Cardiff City, for me he is the destroyer of the Real Cardiff City.

And the proof is there by our attendances and how the old die hards feel nowadays, plus all those who had to endure the stripping of our identity and Tans circus.

Of course Wez, you never had to endure that and I can tell you now it was soul destroying.

In that case nor was Sam ? Or any other owner ,move on Annis we are back in blue now ,where's the no blue no renew crew ? Most have flown the nest

Not my crew, yours was the Red Brigade, where are they Now?

Wez,your hatred for Sam, is clouding your judgement regarding your mate Dictator Mate Tan, I know your proud of your and I honestly feel you may need help

Well im just sooooooooo excited to see who, s mate comes out on top

Wez/ tan

annis / sam oops langston

Club/tan over Sam ,any day

Tans not Cardiff City, for me he is the destroyer of the Real Cardiff City.

And the proof is there by our attendances and how the old die hards feel nowadays, plus all those who had to endure the stripping of our identity and Tans circus.

Of course Wez, you never had to endure that and I can tell you now it was soul destroying.

In that case nor was Sam ? Or any other owner ,move on Annis we are back in blue now ,where's the no blue no renew crew ? Most have flown the nest

Not my crew, yours was the Red Brigade, where are they Now?

Wez,your hatred for Sam, is clouding your judgement regarding your mate Dictator Mate Tan, I know your proud of your and I honestly feel you may need help

Annis my Cardiff city crew still there look up to the back of the stand ,we couldn't give a Shit about the colour we play or played in I don't know the red brigade your on about

After so much water under the bridge, does anyone even give a shit any longer if Sam is or isn't Langstone, I certainly don't. It just seems like another episode in Tans long list of mii-appropriation of both funds and energy and yet more negative publicity for our club

Can we please just pay of this debt?

Taking the piss, don't want to know about Langston just pay them.

Can we please just pay of this debt?

Taking the piss, don't want to know about Langston just pay them.

Feel free mate,thats very generous of you.

Can we please just pay of this debt?

Taking the piss, don't want to know about Langston just pay them.

Feel free mate,thats very generous of you.

No problem. While I'm at it, I'll find £300mil in my sofa, buy the club and invest the rest into the club.

Can we please just pay of this debt?

Taking the piss, don't want to know about Langston just pay them.

Feel free mate,thats very generous of you.

No problem. While I'm at it, I'll find £300mil in my sofa, buy the club and invest the rest into the club.

Play the USA powerball lottery

Can we please just pay of this debt?

Taking the piss, don't want to know about Langston just pay them.

Feel free mate,thats very generous of you.

No problem. While I'm at it, I'll find £300mil in my sofa, buy the club and invest the rest into the club.

Therein (all Mickey-taking apart) lies the problem!

Well im just sooooooooo excited to see who, s mate comes out on top

Wez/ tan

annis / sam oops langston

Club/tan over Sam ,any day

Tans not Cardiff City, for me he is the destroyer of the Real Cardiff City.

And the proof is there by our attendances and how the old die hards feel nowadays, plus all those who had to endure the stripping of our identity and Tans circus.

Of course Wez, you never had to endure that and I can tell you now it was soul destroying.

In that case nor was Sam ? Or any other owner ,move on Annis we are back in blue now ,where's the no blue no renew crew ? Most have flown the nest

Not my crew, yours was the Red Brigade, where are they Now?

Wez,your hatred for Sam, is clouding your judgement regarding your mate Dictator Mate Tan, I know your proud of your and I honestly feel you may need help

Annis my Cardiff city crew still there look up to the back of the stand ,we couldn't give a Shit about the colour we play or played in I don't know the red brigade your on about

Wez, Look forward Seeing the 2 of you away at Huddersfield

On this one I really think we should all wait until the evidence that comes out in open court, otherwise supporters of either side may well end up looking pretty foolish.

Just a few things to consider at this stage.

1. If there was no arguable defence in the case then Sam's lawyers could have applied to have the defence struck out long before this hearing date. They haven't done so, therefore it must logically follow there is something to defend.

2. What is the purpose of this hearing ? if it is a case management hearing it's unlikely we'll be any the wiser after Tuesday other than to know around when the full trial date will be fixed.

3. There is a possibility it might settle tomorrow in which case neither side will have to air their dirty laundry in public and we'll probably never know the full story on either side !

Let's wait and see, it's the safest bet at this stage !!

On the way to the game yesterday we were talking about this and wondered when we would hear more. Unless Tan has a right old rabbit in the hat it is hard to understand how he hopes to defend this?

The 2008 Court case has nothing to do with this dispute as a new agreement was drawn up 2 years ago. So the issue has to be a breach of contract on the behalf of Tan unless he has some very compelling evidence we don't know about.

Tony, I honestly see Tan losing this as he signed and spent over a £1mill looking for any wrong doings.

Tan tried to not pay the Riddler,DJ,Ole etc and all have now been paid.

Its going to be interesting and I would like it finally over once and for all, for the good of Cardiff City, No one else

Annis same here the Langston issue has hung around for far too long now. It is hard to believe but under the old agreement Langston had to be paid in full by this New Year's Eve (2016) and that agreement was made 2004!

The only reason I can think is by delaying payment to Langston the monies saved would not count as expenditure for the club in the accounts. The reason was to portray the club as profitable and hence Financial Fair Play and avoiding a transfer embargo.

Complete speculation on my part but if that is the case then Tan should start repaying as he will lose in court and Langston will be awarded damages including Consequential loss like interest etc.

Tony

The balance of the debt due to Langston is being carried as a debt in the balance sheet so nothing to do with expenditure levels or FFP.

Keith

Keith

Being honest I'm not 100% sure of the FFP rules but it is my understanding that the historic debt held by the club is not the important issue.

The club had to show it traded in the 2014-15 season without making a loss of more than £5m. The club were making from what I understand monthly payments of £250,000 to Langston. I can't remember when these payments first stopped but I think it was around 12 months ago. On that basis the club have NOT spent £3m which it would have done otherwise.

Of course this alone would-not be enough but with other cost cutting measures, including the bazar loans of Jones and Connelly the club may have hoped to have shown they had cut losses to the acceptable levels.

For whatever reason the Football League did-not accept the accounts and imposed a player embargo. But my theory does hold up although I admit it is speculation.

UPDATED

At 2pm today Langston are asking for a Summary Judgement as Tan has still not been a ble to produce one bit of evidence of wrong doing by Langston.

The case also could now go ahead either this Tues or We'd in the High Court.

Sam Hammam or Vincent Tan are not attending, only their Lawyers are.

UPDATED

At 2pm today Langston are asking for a Summary Judgement as Tan has still not been a ble to produce one bit of evidence of wrong doing by Langston.

The case also could now go ahead either this Tues or We'd in the High Court.

Sam Hammam or Vincent Tan are not attending, only their Lawyers are.

Sounds like shows us who you are and we will pay you

On the way to the game yesterday we were talking about this and wondered when we would hear more. Unless Tan has a right old rabbit in the hat it is hard to understand how he hopes to defend this?

The 2008 Court case has nothing to do with this dispute as a new agreement was drawn up 2 years ago. So the issue has to be a breach of contract on the behalf of Tan unless he has some very compelling evidence we don't know about.

Tony, I honestly see Tan losing this as he signed and spent over a £1mill looking for any wrong doings.

Tan tried to not pay the Riddler,DJ,Ole etc and all have now been paid.

Its going to be interesting and I would like it finally over once and for all, for the good of Cardiff City, No one else

Annis same here the Langston issue has hung around for far too long now. It is hard to believe but under the old agreement Langston had to be paid in full by this New Year's Eve (2016) and that agreement was made 2004!

The only reason I can think is by delaying payment to Langston the monies saved would not count as expenditure for the club in the accounts. The reason was to portray the club as profitable and hence Financial Fair Play and avoiding a transfer embargo.

Complete speculation on my part but if that is the case then Tan should start repaying as he will lose in court and Langston will be awarded damages including Consequential loss like interest etc.

Tony

The balance of the debt due to Langston is being carried as a debt in the balance sheet so nothing to do with expenditure levels or FFP.

Keith

Keith

Being honest I'm not 100% sure of the FFP rules but it is my understanding that the historic debt held by the club is not the important issue.

The club had to show it traded in the 2014-15 season without making a loss of more than £5m. The club were making from what I understand monthly payments of £250,000 to Langston. I can't remember when these payments first stopped but I think it was around 12 months ago. On that basis the club have NOT spent £3m which it would have done otherwise.

Of course this alone would-not be enough but with other cost cutting measures, including the bazar loans of Jones and Connelly the club may have hoped to have shown they had cut losses to the acceptable levels.

For whatever reason the Football League did-not accept the accounts and imposed a player embargo. But my theory does hold up although I admit it is speculation.

Tony

Debt levels and cashflows do not come into the assessment of whether a club has broken the FFP Rules , it is entirely about profits and losses. So whether or not CCFC have paid a debt which they have recorded as being due doesn`t come into it.That is cashflow , not profitability.

The FFP Rules for 2014/15 allowed for a loss of £3m , or up to £6m if £3m was put in as new money by an investor to cover it. The club`s directors were adamant when I met them on the day the embargo was announced that the accounts showed a net profit , so there must have been something else that the League weren`t accepting to put the embargo in place. My theory , which can only be (I hope an educated one) a guess until the actual accounts are published is that the League looked at a loss the club incurred before the exceptional item of VT writing off £13m of his debt - i.e. the underlying financial performance.
For instance , the club may have lost £10m from normal trading , covered by his £13m to give a bottom line net profit of £3m. This debt write off was not NEW money put into the business , but a write off of money already put in , so wouldn`t qualify under the £3m extra loss allowance referred to above. The club`s argument may have been that a profit was shown in the accounts , but the League argued that the "real" underlying position was a loss over the permitted limit.
The above might explain what the directors said was a "technical interpretation" disagreement between the club and the League over the FFP requirements that the directors mentioned (but wouldn`t elaborate on ) at the meeting.

Keith

UPDATED

At 2pm today Langston are asking for a Summary Judgement as Tan has still not been a ble to produce one bit of evidence of wrong doing by Langston.

The case also could now go ahead either this Tues or We'd in the High Court.

Sam Hammam or Vincent Tan are not attending, only their Lawyers are.

Annis

Which court is this in? I can see nothing listed in any of the courts today to hear a Summary Judgement request.

Keith

UPDATED

At 2pm today Langston are asking for a Summary Judgement as Tan has still not been a ble to produce one bit of evidence of wrong doing by Langston.

The case also could now go ahead either this Tues or We'd in the High Court.

Sam Hammam or Vincent Tan are not attending, only their Lawyers are.

Sounds like shows us who you are and we will pay you

Langston must believe they have grounds to show the court that Tan can not mount a realistic defence. By now both sides should have lodged their arguments. If Tan's defence is simply show me who Langston are then the Court will obviously want to know why didn't you find this out before entering into the agreement?

Langston have to prove is that there has been a fundamental breach of contract and that is simple enough as the club have admitted to the payments stopping.

This is completely different to the 2008 Court case and relates to an agreement made 2013.

On the way to the game yesterday we were talking about this and wondered when we would hear more. Unless Tan has a right old rabbit in the hat it is hard to understand how he hopes to defend this?

The 2008 Court case has nothing to do with this dispute as a new agreement was drawn up 2 years ago. So the issue has to be a breach of contract on the behalf of Tan unless he has some very compelling evidence we don't know about.

Tony, I honestly see Tan losing this as he signed and spent over a £1mill looking for any wrong doings.

Tan tried to not pay the Riddler,DJ,Ole etc and all have now been paid.

Its going to be interesting and I would like it finally over once and for all, for the good of Cardiff City, No one else

Annis same here the Langston issue has hung around for far too long now. It is hard to believe but under the old agreement Langston had to be paid in full by this New Year's Eve (2016) and that agreement was made 2004!

The only reason I can think is by delaying payment to Langston the monies saved would not count as expenditure for the club in the accounts. The reason was to portray the club as profitable and hence Financial Fair Play and avoiding a transfer embargo.

Complete speculation on my part but if that is the case then Tan should start repaying as he will lose in court and Langston will be awarded damages including Consequential loss like interest etc.

Tony

The balance of the debt due to Langston is being carried as a debt in the balance sheet so nothing to do with expenditure levels or FFP.

Keith

Keith

Being honest I'm not 100% sure of the FFP rules but it is my understanding that the historic debt held by the club is not the important issue.

The club had to show it traded in the 2014-15 season without making a loss of more than £5m. The club were making from what I understand monthly payments of £250,000 to Langston. I can't remember when these payments first stopped but I think it was around 12 months ago. On that basis the club have NOT spent £3m which it would have done otherwise.

Of course this alone would-not be enough but with other cost cutting measures, including the bazar loans of Jones and Connelly the club may have hoped to have shown they had cut losses to the acceptable levels.

For whatever reason the Football League did-not accept the accounts and imposed a player embargo. But my theory does hold up although I admit it is speculation.

Tony

Debt levels and cashflows do not come into the assessment of whether a club has broken the FFP Rules , it is entirely about profits and losses. So whether or not CCFC have paid a debt which they have recorded as being due doesn`t come into it.That is cashflow , not profitability.

The FFP Rules for 2014/15 allowed for a loss of £3m , or up to £6m if £3m was put in as new money by an investor to cover it. The club`s directors were adamant when I met them on the day the embargo was announced that the accounts showed a net profit , so there must have been something else that the League weren`t accepting to put the embargo in place. My theory , which can only be (I hope an educated one) a guess until the actual accounts are published is that the League looked at a loss the club incurred before the exceptional item of VT writing off £13m of his debt - i.e. the underlying financial performance.
For instance , the club may have lost £10m from normal trading , covered by his £13m to give a bottom line net profit of £3m. This debt write off was not NEW money put into the business , but a write off of money already put in , so wouldn`t qualify under the £3m extra loss allowance referred to above. The club`s argument may have been that a profit was shown in the accounts , but the League argued that the "real" underlying position was a loss over the permitted limit.
The above might explain what the directors said was a "technical interpretation" disagreement between the club and the League over the FFP requirements that the directors mentioned (but wouldn`t elaborate on ) at the meeting.

Keith

Thanks for the reply. I agree with your theory on the trading position and if that is correct then you could argue the Football League has been rather harsh on us.

The whole idea of FFP was to reduce debts owed to owners. Whatever you think of Tan writing off £13m and putting another £3m in via equity is good news and shows FFP to be working. Having done that and still being placed under a transfer embargo isn't going to encourage Tan to do it again.

On the way to the game yesterday we were talking about this and wondered when we would hear more. Unless Tan has a right old rabbit in the hat it is hard to understand how he hopes to defend this?

The 2008 Court case has nothing to do with this dispute as a new agreement was drawn up 2 years ago. So the issue has to be a breach of contract on the behalf of Tan unless he has some very compelling evidence we don't know about.

Tony, I honestly see Tan losing this as he signed and spent over a £1mill looking for any wrong doings.

Tan tried to not pay the Riddler,DJ,Ole etc and all have now been paid.

Its going to be interesting and I would like it finally over once and for all, for the good of Cardiff City, No one else

Annis same here the Langston issue has hung around for far too long now. It is hard to believe but under the old agreement Langston had to be paid in full by this New Year's Eve (2016) and that agreement was made 2004!

The only reason I can think is by delaying payment to Langston the monies saved would not count as expenditure for the club in the accounts. The reason was to portray the club as profitable and hence Financial Fair Play and avoiding a transfer embargo.

Complete speculation on my part but if that is the case then Tan should start repaying as he will lose in court and Langston will be awarded damages including Consequential loss like interest etc.

Tony

The balance of the debt due to Langston is being carried as a debt in the balance sheet so nothing to do with expenditure levels or FFP.

Keith

Keith

Being honest I'm not 100% sure of the FFP rules but it is my understanding that the historic debt held by the club is not the important issue.

The club had to show it traded in the 2014-15 season without making a loss of more than £5m. The club were making from what I understand monthly payments of £250,000 to Langston. I can't remember when these payments first stopped but I think it was around 12 months ago. On that basis the club have NOT spent £3m which it would have done otherwise.

Of course this alone would-not be enough but with other cost cutting measures, including the bazar loans of Jones and Connelly the club may have hoped to have shown they had cut losses to the acceptable levels.

For whatever reason the Football League did-not accept the accounts and imposed a player embargo. But my theory does hold up although I admit it is speculation.

Tony

Debt levels and cashflows do not come into the assessment of whether a club has broken the FFP Rules , it is entirely about profits and losses. So whether or not CCFC have paid a debt which they have recorded as being due doesn`t come into it.That is cashflow , not profitability.

The FFP Rules for 2014/15 allowed for a loss of £3m , or up to £6m if £3m was put in as new money by an investor to cover it. The club`s directors were adamant when I met them on the day the embargo was announced that the accounts showed a net profit , so there must have been something else that the League weren`t accepting to put the embargo in place. My theory , which can only be (I hope an educated one) a guess until the actual accounts are published is that the League looked at a loss the club incurred before the exceptional item of VT writing off £13m of his debt - i.e. the underlying financial performance.
For instance , the club may have lost £10m from normal trading , covered by his £13m to give a bottom line net profit of £3m. This debt write off was not NEW money put into the business , but a write off of money already put in , so wouldn`t qualify under the £3m extra loss allowance referred to above. The club`s argument may have been that a profit was shown in the accounts , but the League argued that the "real" underlying position was a loss over the permitted limit.
The above might explain what the directors said was a "technical interpretation" disagreement between the club and the League over the FFP requirements that the directors mentioned (but wouldn`t elaborate on ) at the meeting.

Keith

Thanks for the reply. I agree with your theory on the trading position and if that is correct then you could argue the Football League has been rather harsh on us.

The whole idea of FFP was to reduce debts owed to owners. Whatever you think of Tan writing off £13m and putting another £3m in via equity is good news and shows FFP to be working. Having done that and still being placed under a transfer embargo isn't going to encourage Tan to do it again.

I agree. If (and it can only be an if at present) the League are effectively penalising the club for this debt write off on a technicality then it goes totally against the ethos of FFP being brought in for in the first place , which was to encourage clubs to get their financial houses in order. To reduce debt by millions is surely financial good sense and should be encouraged , not discouraged.
On the other hand , it is allowed for clubs to run up big underlying trading losses , but cover them by selling off players at a big profit (se SCFC July 2015 accounts) as player sales are regarded as "normal" trading activities. It may be normal , but hardly prudent to assume you can run up losses but find enough players at enough sales value to cover them each and every season.

On the way to the game yesterday we were talking about this and wondered when we would hear more. Unless Tan has a right old rabbit in the hat it is hard to understand how he hopes to defend this?

The 2008 Court case has nothing to do with this dispute as a new agreement was drawn up 2 years ago. So the issue has to be a breach of contract on the behalf of Tan unless he has some very compelling evidence we don't know about.

Tony, I honestly see Tan losing this as he signed and spent over a £1mill looking for any wrong doings.

Tan tried to not pay the Riddler,DJ,Ole etc and all have now been paid.

Its going to be interesting and I would like it finally over once and for all, for the good of Cardiff City, No one else

Annis same here the Langston issue has hung around for far too long now. It is hard to believe but under the old agreement Langston had to be paid in full by this New Year's Eve (2016) and that agreement was made 2004!

The only reason I can think is by delaying payment to Langston the monies saved would not count as expenditure for the club in the accounts. The reason was to portray the club as profitable and hence Financial Fair Play and avoiding a transfer embargo.

Complete speculation on my part but if that is the case then Tan should start repaying as he will lose in court and Langston will be awarded damages including Consequential loss like interest etc.

Tony

The balance of the debt due to Langston is being carried as a debt in the balance sheet so nothing to do with expenditure levels or FFP.

Keith

Keith

Being honest I'm not 100% sure of the FFP rules but it is my understanding that the historic debt held by the club is not the important issue.

The club had to show it traded in the 2014-15 season without making a loss of more than £5m. The club were making from what I understand monthly payments of £250,000 to Langston. I can't remember when these payments first stopped but I think it was around 12 months ago. On that basis the club have NOT spent £3m which it would have done otherwise.

Of course this alone would-not be enough but with other cost cutting measures, including the bazar loans of Jones and Connelly the club may have hoped to have shown they had cut losses to the acceptable levels.

For whatever reason the Football League did-not accept the accounts and imposed a player embargo. But my theory does hold up although I admit it is speculation.

Tony

Debt levels and cashflows do not come into the assessment of whether a club has broken the FFP Rules , it is entirely about profits and losses. So whether or not CCFC have paid a debt which they have recorded as being due doesn`t come into it.That is cashflow , not profitability.

The FFP Rules for 2014/15 allowed for a loss of £3m , or up to £6m if £3m was put in as new money by an investor to cover it. The club`s directors were adamant when I met them on the day the embargo was announced that the accounts showed a net profit , so there must have been something else that the League weren`t accepting to put the embargo in place. My theory , which can only be (I hope an educated one) a guess until the actual accounts are published is that the League looked at a loss the club incurred before the exceptional item of VT writing off £13m of his debt - i.e. the underlying financial performance.
For instance , the club may have lost £10m from normal trading , covered by his £13m to give a bottom line net profit of £3m. This debt write off was not NEW money put into the business , but a write off of money already put in , so wouldn`t qualify under the £3m extra loss allowance referred to above. The club`s argument may have been that a profit was shown in the accounts , but the League argued that the "real" underlying position was a loss over the permitted limit.
The above might explain what the directors said was a "technical interpretation" disagreement between the club and the League over the FFP requirements that the directors mentioned (but wouldn`t elaborate on ) at the meeting.

Keith

Thanks for the reply. I agree with your theory on the trading position and if that is correct then you could argue the Football League has been rather harsh on us.

The whole idea of FFP was to reduce debts owed to owners. Whatever you think of Tan writing off £13m and putting another £3m in via equity is good news and shows FFP to be working. Having done that and still being placed under a transfer embargo isn't going to encourage Tan to do it again.

I agree. If (and it can only be an if at present) the League are effectively penalising the club for this debt write off on a technicality then it goes totally against the ethos of FFP being brought in for in the first place , which was to encourage clubs to get their financial houses in order. To reduce debt by millions is surely financial good sense and should be encouraged , not discouraged.
On the other hand , it is allowed for clubs to run up big underlying trading losses , but cover them by selling off players at a big profit (se SCFC July 2015 accounts) as player sales are regarded as "normal" trading activities. It may be normal , but hardly prudent to assume you can run up losses but find enough players at enough sales value to cover them each and every season.

Thanks for all the above, Keith. Once again you have explained things clearly