who are Langston and why should we pay ???

just a thought thats crept up on me this week and that is why are Langston chasing CCFC for money when infact it was a loan to Sam who then spent that money on CCFC ? Surely Langston need to recover the money from Sam and NOT CCFC or am I missing something here ?

I believe it's because the club are a limited company and loans are taken out under the company name not the directors and the directors are not liable for the debts directly. This is what I believe to be the case may be wrong!

I believe it's because the club are a limited company and loans are taken out under the company name not the directors and the directors are not liable for the debts directly. This is what I believe to be the case may be wrong!

do u mean then that Langston loaned Rudgewick ?

i've been asking this question for a while. I am this question at those who claim Sam borrowed the money instead of using his own. I've yet to have a reply with an answer.

i've been asking this question for a while. I am this question at those who claim Sam borrowed the money instead of using his own. I've yet to have a reply with an answer.

I just dont understand though still if Sam borrowed money from Langston then why dont they chase him for it , was his choice at the end of the day what he wanted to do with it UNLESS it was actually borrowed by CCFC which Im guessing is the case then ?

They more than likely are chasing Sam for it. Now none of us know for sure who Langstones are, my guess is it's made up of Sam some family members and possibly Ron Noades or another mate.

At the end of the day the money was loaned to the club under an unsecured loan, can you imagine PMG or others doing the same, every other penny we have borrowed from any of our so called saviours as been at ridiculous interest rates that has returned these saviours a massive profit, either in huge interest rates, reduced cots lad deals or buildings that will produce a large return on rent or hire year on year.

Perhaps it's some of these people who should be holding off calling in the money. PMG are the first creditor paid every month, when the staff were paid late, PMG still had their payment on time.

As part of the 2007 takeover plot/plan CCFC under Ridsdale's stewardship accepted liability for £15m in capital and up to £9m in naming rights owed to Langston.

I would assume that is the answer to why they would expect the club to pay the cash rather than Sam Hammam.

just a thought thats crept up on me this week and that is why are Langston chasing CCFC for money when infact it was a loan to Sam who then spent that money on CCFC ? Surely Langston need to recover the money from Sam and NOT CCFC or am I missing something here ?

Wouldn't it be hilarious if TG looked into it and discovered the money was lent to Sam so legally the club didn't have a case to answer to. I would wet myself laughing if that was true. But I doubt it very much.

Ah well, we can dream......

just a thought thats crept up on me this week and that is why are Langston chasing CCFC for money when infact it was a loan to Sam who then spent that money on CCFC ? Surely Langston need to recover the money from Sam and NOT CCFC or am I missing something here ?

Wouldn't it be hilarious if TG looked into it and discovered the money was lent to Sam so legally the club didn't have a case to answer to. I would wet myself laughing if that was true. But I doubt it very much.

Ah well, we can dream......

Non-starter.

The Langston loan was used to repay Citibank. So, in the unlikely circumstance the loan from Langston was to Sm, not the club, there's zero way Hammam didn't then loan that money to the club.

It's a debt we need to pay.

when did sam loan this money? how long have we owed this money in sams time in charge of the club?

They more than likely are chasing Sam for it. Now none of us know for sure who Langstones are, my guess is it's made up of Sam some family members and possibly Ron Noades or another mate.

At the end of the day the money was loaned to the club under an unsecured loan, can you imagine PMG or others doing the same, every other penny we have borrowed from any of our so called saviours as been at ridiculous interest rates that has returned these saviours a massive profit, either in huge interest rates, reduced cots lad deals or buildings that will produce a large return on rent or hire year on year.

Perhaps it's some of these people who should be holding off calling in the money. PMG are the first creditor paid every month, when the staff were paid late, PMG still had their payment on time.

On the one and only time I met Sam I asked him this specific question.
'Has the Lansgton money been lent to the club by you, or your family'

His answer - 'No'

Are you or your family securing it- 'No'

Personally I thought he was telling me porkies. But Sam would have a clever way of getting around that if it ever came out. There is certainly something fishy about it due to the secrecy involved.

As for PMG, they may wel have made money off the club - I don't know, and no-one has specifically shown they have.
The interest rate they are charging is about right for a risky investment. Its business to them -the £11m they put in must have been a huge worry to them, Guy is wealthy, but thats an awful lot of money, particularly at a time when property (their game) is having a very hard time.

I beleive they SHOULD be helping out more, and agree with you wholeheartedly regaring the payment holidaybut don't blame them for the mess we are in.

There is certainly something fishy about it due to the secrecy involved.

It's simple Tim, you cant offically own 2 football clubs.

There is certainly something fishy about it due to the secrecy involved.

It's simple Tim, you cant offically own 2 football clubs.

You can have up to a 10% shareholding in a club other than the one you have primary control in, from memory.

There is certainly something fishy about it due to the secrecy involved.

It's simple Tim, you cant offically own 2 football clubs.

You can have up to a 10% shareholding in a club other than the one you have primary control in, from memory.

Thats about it Nerd correct. Like the shareholding Sam/Langston had at Tottingham.

There is certainly something fishy about it due to the secrecy involved.

It's simple Tim, you cant offically own 2 football clubs.

Nothing to do with Palace going into admin then ???

As for PMG, they may wel have made money off the club - I don't know, and no-one has specifically shown they have.

The interest rate they are charging is about right for a risky investment. Its business to them -the £11m they put in must have been a huge worry to them, Guy is wealthy, but thats an awful lot of money, particularly at a time when property (their game) is having a very hard time.

I beleive they SHOULD be helping out more, and agree with you wholeheartedly regaring the payment holidaybut don't blame them for the mess we are in.

All I know is PMG have taken a lot of cash out of this club over the past few years. Their charge against Premier Seating Limited gives them entitlement to all receivables gained from the Premier seats (including all sign up fees), Executive boxes, Stand Sponsorships and marketing (advertising boards) in the area of the PS.

They did initally offer a loan facility of £11.3m but that included £2.9m for the House of Sport. We now know that was never taken up because Borley took over the project, so at most PMG loaned £8.5 - 9m (Ridsdale gave a figure of £9m at the Muni Club for whatever that's worth).

We are now told they are owed £9.7m and this is after they paid themselves £1.9m for the hotel plot. It is fair to enquire why after receiving the hotel land money, at least £900k in sign up fees and 2 years worth of revenue from the PS & Executive Boxes do we still owe them more than what they loaned us in the first place?