FANS MISCONCEPTIONS

Lot's of fans are coming out with "Sam was only seconds from putting us out of business" where does this come from, the only ones threatening admin were PMG, they used this threat to get Sam to sign the club over undeer threat of them putting us into admin. is that correct or did i dream it.

Also this court case that Sam was supposed to have lost in London, it was nevr about closing us down, it was about the prefferrential status that PMg were given over and above the Langstone loan which they claimed was illegal and they asked for a summary justice case (look uo summary justice, can't be arsed to explaain it) the judge would not grant this and said it should go for a full trial, again is that correct or not.

Read your article in the Echo in work today Gwyn, and I must say you got it spot on. When Sam first took over, We were in Division 3, Just relegated from Division 2 I believe. He took this club from being a dent in the English League, to being a force which could have possibly been promoted to the Premier League the year he left. Well done sir. Wish your article was longer, because what Terry had written just repeated it's self.

Lot's of fans are coming out with "Sam was only seconds from putting us out of business" where does this come from, the only ones threatening admin were PMG, they used this threat to get Sam to sign the club over undeer threat of them putting us into admin. is that correct or did i dream it.

Also this court case that Sam was supposed to have lost in London, it was nevr about closing us down, it was about the prefferrential status that PMg were given over and above the Langstone loan which they claimed was illegal and they asked for a summary justice case (look uo summary justice, can't be arsed to explaain it) the judge would not grant this and said it should go for a full trial, again is that correct or not.

IMHO thats correct.

On the other hand though, Sam left our finances in an unholy mess, and the £100m of 'assets' in the paper was bullshit which Ridsdale would have been proud of.

Either way Sam / Langston didnt put us into admin and like u said they easily could have but they didnt . I dont think that Sam ever missed 1 tax bill , ever took 3 wages out of CCFC without putting a penny in , lied and conned the fans into early season tickets with the promise of new players , he certainly didnt have any HRMC winding up orders to worry about , he didnt sign Hasselbaink and Fowler , never had any transfer embargos while he was in charge plus he never had a new state of the art multi-million pound 27,000 seater stadium at his disposal either ! Ridsdale was chairman of the CURRENT BOARD and therefore he represented them despite whats been said and only Borley stood up to him , Sam did what he had to do to save CCFC coz he overspent on living the dream ................. but CCFC is still going despite that and despite the fact that Riddler nearly killed the club off ! If he wants to invest then get him on board I say

Sam didn't put us into administration as he would have lost a fortune.

Sure, he paid all the bills - where do you think all the money he borrowed went?

And please stop believing that he took nowt out of our club - he took a fortune in personal salary, alongside his enormous bill for his regular stays at the St. Davids Hotel. He had a fantastic jolly on us, fooled far too many of you and clearly is still doing so.

He left us with massive debts, leaving our club completly hamstrung financially.

Comparing Hammam to Ridsdale, or vice-versa, is like comparing Stalin with Pol Pot - both evil individuals who no sane person would want running their country. Likewise, I don't want Hammam or Ridsdale near my club, or any other, ever again.

what I hate the most at the mo is that CCFC are still paying Ridsdale as some sort of consulatant , plus whats this " void " Ridsdale has left that everyone is so concerned with Sam filling ? Everybody myself included wanted Ridsdale out but now all of a sudden theres a huge " void " to fill after his departure ????

Lot's of fans are coming out with "Sam was only seconds from putting us out of business" where does this come from, the only ones threatening admin were PMG, they used this threat to get Sam to sign the club over undeer threat of them putting us into admin. is that correct or did i dream it.

That correct, Gwyn. You didn't dream it.

However, in the interest of balance, it should be pointed out the club was close to administration during March 2005 around the time of Black Friday.

During my first-ever meeting with Sam in July 2005, I asked him directly if administration had ever been a serious danger during those torrid times. He was honest enough to admit that it had.

http://www.cardiffcity-mad.co.uk/news/t ... ndex.shtml

I am aware that he didnt try to put us into administration

but the clear fact remains this

during his time at cardiff city we saw a debt of 1.5 million rise to 30 million ..within 5 years

we were, whilst sam hammam was custodian , owner , chairman of our club in serious financial difficulty

if people are going to say but we got promotions then the alternative arguemnt could be well peter ridsdale got us the stadium

both left when we were in debt up to our eyeballs

what I hate the most at the mo is that CCFC are still paying Ridsdale as some sort of consulatant , plus whats this " void " Ridsdale has left that everyone is so concerned with Sam filling ? Everybody myself included wanted Ridsdale out but now all of a sudden theres a huge " void " to fill after his departure ????

ridsdale has lots of contacts throughout british football

sam doesnt anymore

thats the " void "

I would rather ridsdale wasnt filling it though

Yes but if Sam comes back then it wont be in the capacity of chairman / owner will it so hopefully there will be no more ludicrous debts built up ? The Malaysians will run this properly and will look at ANY prospective investor regardless of who they are or their history . Im sure that if Ridsdale came back with £12 mil to invest they would talk to him too , but we all knew about Riddler and his contacts etc but everyone on the forum still wanted him to go and not once was this void mentioned !:ayatollah:

Lot's of fans are coming out with "Sam was only seconds from putting us out of business" where does this come from, the only ones threatening admin were PMG, they used this threat to get Sam to sign the club over undeer threat of them putting us into admin. is that correct or did i dream it.

Also this court case that Sam was supposed to have lost in London, it was nevr about closing us down, it was about the prefferrential status that PMg were given over and above the Langstone loan which they claimed was illegal and they asked for a summary justice case (look uo summary justice, can't be arsed to explaain it) the judge would not grant this and said it should go for a full trial, again is that correct or not.

You are right Gwyn that Langston brought a Summary Judgement case to the court largely as a consequence of the new Chairman granting (on the very same day he voted himself the £500k bonus) secured creditor status to PMG - they suddenly had a first charge over all the assets in all the companies in the CCFC "group".

The judge decided that the club had a chance of lodging a defence if the matter went to a full trial - he didn`t rule in favour of either side - which is all that is needed to dismiss a Summary Judgement claim. He also decided that the club had vastly overspent on legal fees in defending the case as he only awarded costs of about £80k (from memory - I don`t have the papers in front of me tonight) rather than the figure in excess of £500k which the club ran up. Those fees were paid to legal firms with "close connections" to the club and its directors.

Keith

Sam didn't take wage in fact the 6 million pound acrued thru management fees was given back to the club, and yes Black Friday was a close call and Sam was struggling, but to save admin he sold Kav and we carried on, he later sold earnie, Ginge and gabs, but soon after he rebuilt the team and we were top of the championship at Xmas with six points clear.

It's the usual influential suspects who try to bluster over others viewpoints. It's reassuring to see there are plenty of knowledgeable people able to provide a balance.
I just looked at the results of todays poll.....52% would welcome Hammam, 48% woudn't want him back. After all the pro Hammam spin on this board I suggest this may be a disappointment to the resurgent 'inner circle'. After everything that's happened since Hammams departure your average City fan is far more savvy, we are less likely to fall for the bluster and more likely to ask pertinent questions. In short, we've grown up and nobody should blithely assume our support......especially Hammam.

what was the result of the poll on the echo site

by the time I got on there it was finished for chat , terry had buggered off !!

what was the result of the poll on the echo site

by the time I got on there it was finished for chat , terry had buggered off !!

25% for his return, 75% against his return

Sam is like Marmite you either love him or hate him too many people are too quick to condemn him for his previous actions and many do not know the truth regarding the finances etc when he was in charge . Now tho he wants to invest and become a partner on the board with TG / VT so whats the problem with that ??

Lot's of fans are coming out with "Sam was only seconds from putting us out of business" where does this come from, the only ones threatening admin were PMG, they used this threat to get Sam to sign the club over undeer threat of them putting us into admin. is that correct or did i dream it.

Also this court case that Sam was supposed to have lost in London, it was nevr about closing us down, it was about the prefferrential status that PMg were given over and above the Langstone loan which they claimed was illegal and they asked for a summary justice case (look uo summary justice, can't be arsed to explaain it) the judge would not grant this and said it should go for a full trial, again is that correct or not.

You are right Gwyn that Langston brought a Summary Judgement case to the court largely as a consequence of the new Chairman granting (on the very same day he voted himself the £500k bonus) secured creditor status to PMG - they suddenly had a first charge over all the assets in all the companies in the CCFC "group".

The judge decided that the club had a chance of lodging a defence if the matter went to a full trial - he didn`t rule in favour of either side - which is all that is needed to dismiss a Summary Judgement claim. He also decided that the club had vastly overspent on legal fees in defending the case as he only awarded costs of about £80k (from memory - I don`t have the papers in front of me tonight) rather than the figure in excess of £500k which the club ran up. Those fees were paid to legal firms with "close connections" to the club and its directors.

Keith

Summary Judgements are only awarded if the defence (or petition for that matter) on the face of it seems frivolous or fanciful. All the Judge did was decide that the club had a 'defence' and considering it paid £500,000 in legal fees it is not surprising they eventually came up with something.

I once went to court as a litigant in person and successfully had a summary judgement dismissed and I was up against a Queens Council, so I think that explains fully how difficult it is to gain a Summary Judgement. (PS I also won costs of £120 which was the maximum I could claim)

So the award was £80,000 against Langston (around 16% of the total) tells its own story.

Given a lot of the replies in this thread, there's not much point in me saying this but I will - Gwyn is right, to the best of my knowledge the threat to send us into administration has always come from Ridsdale/PMG rather than Hammam/Langston.

Given a lot of the replies in this thread, there's not much point in me saying this but I will - Gwyn is right, to the best of my knowledge the threat to send us into administration has always come from Ridsdale/PMG rather than Hammam/Langston.

Welcome on board Bob

Good to have another excellent poster on here

what was the result of the poll on the echo site

by the time I got on there it was finished for chat , terry had buggered off !!

25% for his return, 75% against his return

it was mostly for him on here and quite highly against him on mikes board

therefore probably tur to say its somewhere inbetween all of them

either way , a substantial element of our support ..perhaps as high as half of them dont want sam back

thats not a good start if he wants to be welcomed back

Sam is like Marmite you either love him or hate him too many people are too quick to condemn him for his previous actions and many do not know the truth regarding the finances etc when he was in charge . Now tho he wants to invest and become a partner on the board with TG / VT so whats the problem with that ??

if people are entitled to have their view that he should come back then people are entitled to have the opposite one , based on their experiences whilst he was here


the problem with him coming back for them I would assume is that they are worried he hasnt learnt , he hasnt changed and things will not be happy

And of the 50% that don't want him back, when you ask them the reasons for their mis trust they say he threatened us with admin-Wrong, he took us to court to put us out of business-Wrong, he run up 24 million pound debt-correct but he left 30 million pounds worth of player assetts.

The main problem in this original battle was we only heard one sides defence, suprisingly for Sam he stayed quiet, he took all the flak and propoganda war from PR and the club and nevr once got involved in a slagging match, personally I think he should have spoke out, but his choice.

And of the 50% that don't want him back, when you ask them the reasons for their mis trust they say he threatened us with admin-Wrong, he took us to court to put us out of business-Wrong, he run up 24 million pound debt-correct but he left 30 million pounds worth of player assetts.

The main problem in this original battle was we only heard one sides defence, suprisingly for Sam he stayed quiet, he took all the flak and propoganda war from PR and the club and nevr once got involved in a slagging match, personally I think he should have spoke out, but his choice.

I think you will find that irrespective of the threat of administration ( that never was ) there were plenty of reasons for their mistrust of sam hammam

wimbledon being one and a very important one at that

And of the 50% that don't want him back, when you ask them the reasons for their mis trust they say he threatened us with admin-Wrong, he took us to court to put us out of business-Wrong, he run up 24 million pound debt-correct but he left 30 million pounds worth of player assetts.

The main problem in this original battle was we only heard one sides defence, suprisingly for Sam he stayed quiet, he took all the flak and propoganda war from PR and the club and nevr once got involved in a slagging match, personally I think he should have spoke out, but his choice.

Id really like the hear Sam's side of the story just to put the many doubters right plus many fans forget that since Sam left CCFC must have sold well over £24 mil in players ! Where did that money all go ?

Lot's of fans are coming out with "Sam was only seconds from putting us out of business" where does this come from, the only ones threatening admin were PMG, they used this threat to get Sam to sign the club over undeer threat of them putting us into admin. is that correct or did i dream it.

Also this court case that Sam was supposed to have lost in London, it was nevr about closing us down, it was about the prefferrential status that PMg were given over and above the Langstone loan which they claimed was illegal and they asked for a summary justice case (look uo summary justice, can't be arsed to explaain it) the judge would not grant this and said it should go for a full trial, again is that correct or not.

I was most probably Sam's biggest critics and was truly angered at the way our club went into free fall on black Friday and there after but time heals wounds. You have to take stock and look at the whole picture, Im now certain that Sam was and is devastated that he could never finish the job/dream he had started. Its not a case of being a fickle fan its reality and we simply have to move on but how far have we moved on financially, well we really haven't move on that far have we. I have been a city fan for over 40years and admittedly the best years was under SH, it was crazy, we were all on such a high and we it all came tumbling down the anger and hatred was aimed at Sam and there are many that have never forgiven him. Hatred is such a bad thing it distracts all sensible thinking and eats away at you, Sam didnt kill, raped or beat anyone. He made a huge financial blunder which costs us dearly but it hurt him and his pride more than us, that Im now sure of.

Since when have we the fans have the right not to forgive and give 2nd chances to people in life, personally I say lets bring him home, let Sam put the wrong right, lets put our personal issues behind us and give this man a chance, who are we to deny this as we all need 2nd chances sometime or other. BRING HIM HOME, you don't have to like someone to respect them. Im absolutely convinced that when Sam left he took the most crucial missing part of CCFC with him and we want and need that back, the soul of the club..............


Looking back in anger gets you nowhere, its the future that matters.

Vince, Corky and myself used to regularly attend national meetings with the FSF, now its ironic that half the time spent at these meetings was dpent on Wimbledon and the MK Dons situation, now whilst there was a good amount of wib=mbledon support against Sam mostly because of the MK Don situation, there was also a good section of Wimbledon fans who were still in support of Sam.

We must be winning the argument if suddenly the best argument people can give against bringing Sam back is the Wimbledon case against him.

I think you will find that irrespective of the threat of administration ( that never was ) there were plenty of reasons for their mistrust of sam hammam

wimbledon being one and a very important one at that

How many of those reasons for mistrust came from the same source as the administration that never was? As for Wimbledon winning the FA Cup and spending years in the First Division/Premier League despite a meagre supporter base doesn't sound like grounds for compliant to me.

thats your view of it which you are entitled to

how many wimbledon fans did you meet ?

the wimbledon fans who have written books on the subject would differ

here is a quote from lawrence llowne , of the wimbledon independent supporters association


" we feel sam sold us down the river , he talked about the club being his "family " but he took over a community club which people had supported loyally for generations ..ok we had great years on the field , but he sold the club , sold our ground and walked off 30 million richer ..it was shattering "

thats quoted from david conns boom searching for the soul of football

I think you will find that irrespective of the threat of administration ( that never was ) there were plenty of reasons for their mistrust of sam hammam

wimbledon being one and a very important one at that

How many of those reasons for mistrust came from the same source as the administration that never was? As for Wimbledon winning the FA Cup and spending years in the First Division/Premier League despite a meagre supporter base doesn't sound like grounds for compliant to me.

thats an incredibly patronisng and arrogant attitude to take towards supporters of a fellow football club

only little wimbledon !!

I think you will find that irrespective of the threat of administration ( that never was ) there were plenty of reasons for their mistrust of sam hammam

wimbledon being one and a very important one at that

How many of those reasons for mistrust came from the same source as the administration that never was? As for Wimbledon winning the FA Cup and spending years in the First Division/Premier League despite a meagre supporter base doesn't sound like grounds for compliant to me.

thats an incredibly patronisng and arrogant attitude to take towards supporters of a fellow football club

only little wimbledon !!

It is only patronising and arrogant if its not true, but if it wasn't I don't quite understand why I have a responsiblity not to hurt the feelings of fans from other clubs, that's the nature of the game.