Ridsdales 14 million pound cock up

It still reverts apparantly to 24 million langston debt if 10 mill not repaid by Dec 31st. Ridsdale never got it signed off.

Ridsdale, the man u all slagged me off for slagging him off and warning of his traits.

It still reverts apparantly to 24 million langston debt if 10 mill not repaid by Dec 31st. Ridsdale never got it signed off.

Ridsdale, the man u all slagged me off for slagging him off and warning of his traits.

Did he ever settle the little wager re fowler???

24 million down to 10 is not bad.
if billionaires cant find away around that one.
well are they billionaires?

not giving away 14m for the sake of it is why they are billionaires

It still reverts apparantly to 24 million langston debt if 10 mill not repaid by Dec 31st. Ridsdale never got it signed off.

Ridsdale, the man u all slagged me off for slagging him off and warning of his traits.

Did he ever settle the little wager re fowler???

Dont be daft Gareth

It still reverts apparantly to 24 million langston debt if 10 mill not repaid by Dec 31st. Ridsdale never got it signed off.

Ridsdale, the man u all slagged me off for slagging him off and warning of his traits.

This was brought up before Steve, ref the 3rd agreement.

The previous (2nd) agreement was for £15m, surely it would revert back to that. Sam tried to show this wasn't legal, but lost in court. Of course he could always appeal, with the reversion to the original (1st) £24m agreement is far from a given.

It still reverts apparantly to 24 million langston debt if 10 mill not repaid by Dec 31st. Ridsdale never got it signed off.

Ridsdale, the man u all slagged me off for slagging him off and warning of his traits.

I'm experiencing Déjà vu, I swear Carl said something very similar weeks ago.......

Seems like a vicious circle that will never be broken,

Cannot pay the debt, Sam cannot get on the board because of PMG, Sam gets a bit mouthy and then PMG threaten administration as Sams debt is not secured, then Sam steps back again.

The only people to break this cycle is TG & VT.

It still reverts apparantly to 24 million langston debt if 10 mill not repaid by Dec 31st. Ridsdale never got it signed off.

Ridsdale, the man u all slagged me off for slagging him off and warning of his traits.

Did he ever settle the little wager re fowler???

Dont be daft Gareth

But Peter is an honorable man who got CCFC to Wembley twice and won us the Algarve Cup and turned our balance sheet black with his robust planning. Your lieing Steve.

It still reverts apparantly to 24 million langston debt if 10 mill not repaid by Dec 31st. Ridsdale never got it signed off.

Ridsdale, the man u all slagged me off for slagging him off and warning of his traits.

This was brought up before Steve, ref the 3rd agreement.

The previous (2nd) agreement was for £15m, surely it would revert back to that. Sam tried to show this wasn't legal, but lost in court. Of course he could always appeal, with the reversion to the original (1st) £24m agreement is far from a given.

Not sure that's the case Tim but of course I'm not a legal expert but this is how I understand it.

Sam only lost a Summary Judgement he didn't lose at a full trial so there would be no need of an appeal. If you remember there was a freeze on any legal action being taken before the 1 January of this year to allow both sides to come to a negotiated agreement.

It appears a full and final settlement was never reach, only an interim agreement until 31 December this year. So in theory Langston could go back to court and basically say the club has reneged on its obligation to find a full and final negotiated agreement.

I would assume the position would then be the 2nd agreement would be in place but Langston could seek to have that overturned and return to the full £24m if they went to full trial.

I’m not saying they would be successful but it is a possibility.

It still reverts apparantly to 24 million langston debt if 10 mill not repaid by Dec 31st. Ridsdale never got it signed off.

Ridsdale, the man u all slagged me off for slagging him off and warning of his traits.

This was brought up before Steve, ref the 3rd agreement.

The previous (2nd) agreement was for £15m, surely it would revert back to that. Sam tried to show this wasn't legal, but lost in court. Of course he could always appeal, with the reversion to the original (1st) £24m agreement is far from a given.

Not sure that's the case Tim but of course I'm not a legal expert but this is how I understand it.

Sam only lost a Summary Judgement he didn't lose at a full trial so there would be no need of an appeal. If you remember there was a freeze on any legal action being taken before the 1 January of this year to allow both sides to come to a negotiated agreement.

It appears a full and final settlement was never reach, only an interim agreement until 31 December this year. So in theory Langston could go back to court and basically say the club has reneged on its obligation to find a full and final negotiated agreement.

I would assume the position would then be the 2nd agreement would be in place but Langston could seek to have that overturned and return to the full £24m if they went to full trial.

I’m not saying they would be successful but it is a possibility.

I'd have to check back Tony, but I'm certain his next step would have been to appeal the decision. I'll search for it.

The rest is exactly as I said it (maybe better wording, typing and spelling !), and as I said, the initial cha nge will be to the 2nd (£15m ) agreement, and Sam would have to go to court to get it to the £24m, which would most likely end up with the club being put into admin and Sam getting f-all, which is WHY this has to be sorted before the Malaysians invest any significant further funds.

I'm confident the position of the club paying Sam £24m to cover the debt will NEVER happen. I'm sure Sam's aware of this too.

It still reverts apparantly to 24 million langston debt if 10 mill not repaid by Dec 31st. Ridsdale never got it signed off.

Ridsdale, the man u all slagged me off for slagging him off and warning of his traits.

I thought it was reduced to £10M and then increased by £1M for each year we hadn't paid it off, or is this the deal that was not signed off?

Not sure that's the case Tim but of course I'm not a legal expert but this is how I understand it.

Sam only lost a Summary Judgement he didn't lose at a full trial so there would be no need of an appeal. If you remember there was a freeze on any legal action being taken before the 1 January of this year to allow both sides to come to a negotiated agreement.

It appears a full and final settlement was never reach, only an interim agreement until 31 December this year. So in theory Langston could go back to court and basically say the club has reneged on its obligation to find a full and final negotiated agreement.

I would assume the position would then be the 2nd agreement would be in place but Langston could seek to have that overturned and return to the full £24m if they went to full trial.

I’m not saying they would be successful but it is a possibility.

I'd have to check back Tony, but I'm certain his next step would have been to appeal the decision. I'll search for it.

The rest is exactly as I said it (maybe better wording, typing and spelling !), and as I said, the initial cha nge will be to the 2nd (£15m ) agreement, and Sam would have to go to court to get it to the £24m, which would most likely end up with the club being put into admin and Sam getting f-all, which is WHY this has to be sorted before the Malaysians invest any significant further funds.

I'm confident the position of the club paying Sam £24m to cover the debt will NEVER happen. I'm sure Sam's aware of this too.

I'm totally with you on the second part the agreement would revert to the second agreement (£15m + £9m naming rights) and Sam would need to go to court to overturn that, which could have nasty consequences for the club.

Not having ago mate but I think you are getting confused with an appeal against the Summary Judgement. Langston were denied permission by the Judge to appeal against the Summary Judgement (although oddly you can ignore that and go any way) but usually you have to appeal within 28 or 56 days (I can't remember which sorry) so they would be time barred any way.

The Summary hearing is a completely different thing to a full hearing and Langston it would appear would have grounds to return to the courts on the 1 January to seek a full hearing if no agreement is reached with the club by then.

It still reverts apparantly to 24 million langston debt if 10 mill not repaid by Dec 31st. Ridsdale never got it signed off.

Ridsdale, the man u all slagged me off for slagging him off and warning of his traits.

This was brought up before Steve, ref the 3rd agreement.

The previous (2nd) agreement was for £15m, surely it would revert back to that. Sam tried to show this wasn't legal, but lost in court. Of course he could always appeal, with the reversion to the original (1st) £24m agreement is far from a given.

Not sure that's the case Tim but of course I'm not a legal expert but this is how I understand it.

Sam only lost a Summary Judgement he didn't lose at a full trial so there would be no need of an appeal. If you remember there was a freeze on any legal action being taken before the 1 January of this year to allow both sides to come to a negotiated agreement.

It appears a full and final settlement was never reach, only an interim agreement until 31 December this year. So in theory Langston could go back to court and basically say the club has reneged on its obligation to find a full and final negotiated agreement.

I would assume the position would then be the 2nd agreement would be in place but Langston could seek to have that overturned and return to the full £24m if they went to full trial.

I’m not saying they would be successful but it is a possibility.

Bang on Tony, people have got this idea in their heads that Sam lost the court case, all the case established was that the club could have the opportunity to present a defence, that is all a summary judgement establishes.

It still reverts apparantly to 24 million langston debt if 10 mill not repaid by Dec 31st. Ridsdale never got it signed off.

Ridsdale, the man u all slagged me off for slagging him off and warning of his traits.

This was brought up before Steve, ref the 3rd agreement.

The previous (2nd) agreement was for £15m, surely it would revert back to that. Sam tried to show this wasn't legal, but lost in court. Of course he could always appeal, with the reversion to the original (1st) £24m agreement is far from a given.

Not sure that's the case Tim but of course I'm not a legal expert but this is how I understand it.

Sam only lost a Summary Judgement he didn't lose at a full trial so there would be no need of an appeal. If you remember there was a freeze on any legal action being taken before the 1 January of this year to allow both sides to come to a negotiated agreement.

It appears a full and final settlement was never reach, only an interim agreement until 31 December this year. So in theory Langston could go back to court and basically say the club has reneged on its obligation to find a full and final negotiated agreement.

I would assume the position would then be the 2nd agreement would be in place but Langston could seek to have that overturned and return to the full £24m if they went to full trial.

I’m not saying they would be successful but it is a possibility.

Bang on Tony, people have got this idea in their heads that Sam lost the court case, all the case established was that the club could have the opportunity to present a defence, that is all a summary judgement establishes.

It still reverts apparantly to 24 million langston debt if 10 mill not repaid by Dec 31st. Ridsdale never got it signed off.

Ridsdale, the man u all slagged me off for slagging him off and warning of his traits.

This was brought up before Steve, ref the 3rd agreement.

The previous (2nd) agreement was for £15m, surely it would revert back to that. Sam tried to show this wasn't legal, but lost in court. Of course he could always appeal, with the reversion to the original (1st) £24m agreement is far from a given.

Not sure that's the case Tim but of course I'm not a legal expert but this is how I understand it.

Sam only lost a Summary Judgement he didn't lose at a full trial so there would be no need of an appeal. If you remember there was a freeze on any legal action being taken before the 1 January of this year to allow both sides to come to a negotiated agreement.

It appears a full and final settlement was never reach, only an interim agreement until 31 December this year. So in theory Langston could go back to court and basically say the club has reneged on its obligation to find a full and final negotiated agreement.

I would assume the position would then be the 2nd agreement would be in place but Langston could seek to have that overturned and return to the full £24m if they went to full trial.

I’m not saying they would be successful but it is a possibility.

Some research into the court case. I think that the judge said something along the lines that he wouldn't allow Lang to appela agains the summary judgement, so yes it would require a full case to overcome it, probably taking years and millions of pounds in costs for both sides. not really in anyone's interests, especially as a win for langston would mean no money for them either as the club will be put into admin.

a good article here on WHY the case went to court.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Court+to+ ... ings.(News)-a0176687189 and Sam 'I'm not langston'

http://www.clubsincrisis.com/cardiff_city.html

Interesting article by john beech http://footballmanagement.wordpress.com ... f-cardiff/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7290681.stm

And finally from the western Mail (sorry extract only -no direct link)

A bit of news in the Western Mail:

Cardiff City could be days away from administration (http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wal ... -20621134/)

CARDIFF City Football Club could be in administration as early as next week.

The club is expected to learn by Wednesday the result of a two-day hearing at London’s High Court into a demand by the club’s biggest creditor Langston for immediate repayment of £31m.

Chairman Peter Ridsdale has said that losing the case would result in the club going immediately into administration.

Judge Michael Briggs yesterday ended the hearing in court 59 of the Royal Courts of Justice in London’s Strand by saying he intended to deliver his verdict by Wednesday.

On the second day of the hearing yesterday, the club’s legal team gave their defence and described Langston’s claim as “flawed and opportunistic”.

Barrister David Wolfson told the court that the mysterious Panama-based firm, which lent Cardiff City £24m in 2004, was asking for summary judgment as it did not want the facts being fully examined at a trial.

He told the judge, “Their strategy is to keep your Lordship from looking at the documents.”

He described the issues at stake as “weighty and difficult” and said that if a full trial was ordered, he would use the court’s powers to determine who controls Langston.

The only publicly available information is that it is a company registered in Panama, with a Swiss postal box as a contact address and three registered directors which are British Virgin Islands incorporated private companies.

Mr Wolfson said, “We will use the processes of the court to find out who is the decision maker, who the brain behind Langston is.”

To help achieve this, he said he would depose the club’s former chairman Sam Hammam and order him to attend court even if he is in America.

On Wednesday, Mr Wolfson had said the club could show that “Mr Hammam equals Langston” and the court returned to the issue yesterday when Langston’s barrister Michael Driscoll QC said the court did not know the extent to which the charismatic Lebanese businessman was in charge.

The judge told him, “Well they say he is and there is no evidence on your side to suggest otherwise.”

In his skeleton argument put to the court, which has been seen by the Western Mail, Mr Wolfson also refers to other evidence the club has that Mr Hammam is Langston.

Crucially, he wrote that Hammam claimed to have “put £30m into the club” and that he once told Mr Ridsdale the amount of the loan notes he could “afford to write off”.

The legal arguments heard by the court yesterday focused on the two separate reasonings put forward by Langston.

Mr Driscoll rejected the claim that Langston had given up a significant amount by agreeing to write down the £24m capital to £15m plus naming rights to the new stadium in October 2006 as well as agreeing to defer any interest perhaps indefinitely.

He said this had not been a significant concession as the club was on the verge on bankruptcy and otherwise an unsecured creditor like Langston could have walked away with nothing.

He said, “All Langston wanted was to get paid.”

In his submissions on Wednesday, Langston’s barrister Michael Driscoll QC had argued that this October 2006 agreement was a considerable concession which gave his client rights.

Principally, Langston believes this contract is in effect terminated by the decision of Cardiff council and Cardiff City to hand the liability for building the new stadium at Leckwith to a new company called Cardiff City Stadium Ltd, or Devco, which Langston has no claim over.

Although the stadium is still due to appear on the books of the football club when it is completed, Langston claims the appearance of a new company in a varied contract constitutes the termination of their existing arrangement.

The judge, who was appointed to the High Court in June 2006, said he would deliver a written judgment by the end of the court’s term, which finishes on Wednesday, March 16.

Mr Wolfson also rejected Mr Driscoll’s second argument, that Cardiff council was wrong to agree to the stadium becoming unconditional as the conditions had not been satisfied, and that therefore Cardiff City had failed to fulfil their obligations to Langston by reaching unconditionality on the £58m Leckwith project by May 2007.

Mr Wolfson said that Langston must have known when they signed their October 2006 loan renegotiation that the May 2007 date was never going to happen as there were a number of clauses that could not be satisfied by that date and it was therefore a “mutual error”.


Do you reckon sam would still fancy the court battle required to get his £24m ??

Not sure that's the case Tim but of course I'm not a legal expert but this is how I understand it.

Sam only lost a Summary Judgement he didn't lose at a full trial so there would be no need of an appeal. If you remember there was a freeze on any legal action being taken before the 1 January of this year to allow both sides to come to a negotiated agreement.

It appears a full and final settlement was never reach, only an interim agreement until 31 December this year. So in theory Langston could go back to court and basically say the club has reneged on its obligation to find a full and final negotiated agreement.

I would assume the position would then be the 2nd agreement would be in place but Langston could seek to have that overturned and return to the full £24m if they went to full trial.

I’m not saying they would be successful but it is a possibility.[/quote]

Bang on Tony, people have got this idea in their heads that Sam lost the court case, all the case established was that the club could have the opportunity to present a defence, that is all a summary judgement establishes.[/quote]


Well yes and no Gwyn.

Tony is right, Sam could go to a full case for it.
But he DID lose the case whch he took to court which was the summary judgement one.

He HAS got the right to go for a full trial, but I'm sure he's not dull enough to do it, knowing he'll end up with the sum totl of f-all for probably a million pounds worth of legal costs.

This is why the Malaysians CAN'T put more money into the club as if they did it would immediately strengthen Sam's position. The better the finacial state of the club the more worthwhile it is for Sam to take the club to court.

The details of why Sam thinks the agreement isn't legal are complicated - and shown the article I've copied above. From what was said there I wouldn't think he's got a very good chance in court proving what he needs to.

also the summary judgement method for him protected him from saying who Langston really are, something, for some reason, he's never been keen on divulging !

At a full trial he'd have to do this - and for some strange reason I've got the feeling that this could be quite embarrassing or even costly to Sam.

At the end of the day, its in EVERYONE'S interest to get this sorted once and for all - even the £15m deal isn't great for CCFC .

Not sure that's the case Tim but of course I'm not a legal expert but this is how I understand it.

Sam only lost a Summary Judgement he didn't lose at a full trial so there would be no need of an appeal. If you remember there was a freeze on any legal action being taken before the 1 January of this year to allow both sides to come to a negotiated agreement.

It appears a full and final settlement was never reach, only an interim agreement until 31 December this year. So in theory Langston could go back to court and basically say the club has reneged on its obligation to find a full and final negotiated agreement.

I would assume the position would then be the 2nd agreement would be in place but Langston could seek to have that overturned and return to the full £24m if they went to full trial.

I’m not saying they would be successful but it is a possibility.

I'd have to check back Tony, but I'm certain his next step would have been to appeal the decision. I'll search for it.

The rest is exactly as I said it (maybe better wording, typing and spelling !), and as I said, the initial cha nge will be to the 2nd (£15m ) agreement, and Sam would have to go to court to get it to the £24m, which would most likely end up with the club being put into admin and Sam getting f-all, which is WHY this has to be sorted before the Malaysians invest any significant further funds.

I'm confident the position of the club paying Sam £24m to cover the debt will NEVER happen. I'm sure Sam's aware of this too.

I'm totally with you on the second part the agreement would revert to the second agreement (£15m + £9m naming rights) and Sam would need to go to court to overturn that, which could have nasty consequences for the club.

Not having ago mate but I think you are getting confused with an appeal against the Summary Judgement. Langston were denied permission by the Judge to appeal against the Summary Judgement (although oddly you can ignore that and go any way) but usually you have to appeal within 28 or 56 days (I can't remember which sorry) so they would be time barred any way.

The Summary hearing is a completely different thing to a full hearing and Langston it would appear would have grounds to return to the courts on the 1 January to seek a full hearing if no agreement is reached with the club by then.

Yes Tony.
Again, I didn't put it over well. You are right. He was denied appeal against Summary Judgement, but still had the right to go to Full Trial.