If Langstone debt increases to level it was pre-agreement...

I hope Sam isn't blamed at all. He has not been paid a penny and there is a massive violation in the agreement Ridders made with Sam. He knew it was unlikely that the debt would be able to be paid but it made the books look better.

I hope Sam isn't blamed at all. He has not been paid a penny and there is a massive violation in the agreement Ridders made with Sam. He knew it was unlikely that the debt would be able to be paid but it made the books look better.

Correct Maccydee, Sam Reduced it from £24 Million to £10 Million on certain Conditions and the main one was that he was paid by Dec 31st 2010, So like any other Debt, If We have agree something its up to us to pay it.

So I guess if PMG were Langston the same would apply to them.

So I guess if PMG were Langston the same would apply to them.

It would apply to anyone who had not received a penny off the debt their were owed for 3 yrs and the fact they have renegotiated the agreement 3 times to benefit the club and each time the club has let them down then yes it would apply to them also.

I still dont get this Langston business at all and Sam's involvement seems a bit personal , so IF he HAD stayed on then hypothetically how much would he and CCFC owe Langston ?

I still dont get this Langston business at all and Sam's involvement seems a bit personal , so IF he HAD stayed on then hypothetically how much would he and CCFC owe Langston ?

I agree Vintage - I wanna know who these Langstones are? How is Sam so invlved with them.
I have a lot of time for what Sam has done for our club and will never forget him for that. If its a case that he is using the Langstone isue as cover for the Stdium and his departure then fair enough. But time has come for clearing the air.
I would welcome him back with the malaysian involved but time has come for total openness.

If it does the club will be put into admin, as it will have lost a court case (as that is what will be required to force repayment of the full £24m - plus I beleive interest) and be insolvent.

I for one hope something can get sorted, so we can move on.

If it does the club will be put into admin, as it will have lost a court case (as that is what will be required to force repayment of the full £24m - plus I beleive interest) and be insolvent.

I for one hope something can get sorted, so we can move on.

I still dont get Langston lend Sam the money BUT CCFC have to pay it all back , dont get me wrong I am a big fan of Sam but I cant get my head around this issue ? Somebody help plz

If it does the club will be put into admin, as it will have lost a court case (as that is what will be required to force repayment of the full £24m - plus I beleive interest) and be insolvent.

I for one hope something can get sorted, so we can move on.

I still dont get Langston lend Sam the money BUT CCFC have to pay it all back , dont get me wrong I am a big fan of Sam but I cant get my head around this issue ? Somebody help plz

Sam rang me after I'd written to him playing f**k about the mess he'd got our club into - how he got my mobile number is another matter Anyway, 45 minutes of disagreements followed during which time he told me that he was indeed Langston.

IMO, the reason he's not admitting it publicly is that he'd potentially be facing money laundering charges.

So basically then its a made up company generated in order to recoup any money he invested / squandered into CCFC , so when things went tits up and he was ousted he just fancied getting his money back out of CCFC ? A bit like what PMG are doing now but in a differenet manner !

Point is though, the Langston debt only became a debt after Sam was forced out. Prior to that it was an investment in the same way as anyone else who's put money in. If you've got a mortgage on your house then that isn't a debt as such because you've got the benefit and the value of the house over and above it. But if you were then booted out of the house but were still expected to be responsible for the mortgage then it is a real debt, and pretty unfair on the person expected to bare the weight of the money.
In any case, when Sam was at the club in his early days I didn't see threads complaining about how much he was spending. In fact I did see plenty of threads complaining that we wasn't spending enough on transfers. Some of the players names being banded about on the messageboards back then were mind bending. We were all guilty of bullying Sam into spending more than he should have done. Trouble is people have very selective and very short memories.

Point is though, the Langston debt only became a debt after Sam was forced out. Prior to that it was an investment in the same way as anyone else who's put money in. If you've got a mortgage on your house then that isn't a debt as such because you've got the benefit and the value of the house over and above it. But if you were then booted out of the house but were still expected to be responsible for the mortgage then it is a real debt, and pretty unfair on the person expected to bare the weight of the money.
In any case, when Sam was at the club in his early days I didn't see threads complaining about how much he was spending. In fact I did see plenty of threads complaining that we wasn't spending enough on transfers. Some of the players names being banded about on the messageboards back then were mind bending. We were all guilty of bullying Sam into spending more than he should have done. Trouble is people have very selective and very short memories.

This is how I feel it has panned out. Langstones might not be "him" but I have a feeling and its only a feeling that its someone on his behalf etc or he is heavily involved with.
Things were starting to go pear shaped for SH before he was sent packing. The stadium couldn't get finalsed and people in the area (council/eggs etc) didn't want him about.
I have a further conspiracy theory that its all of been kind of planned. Sam sent himself away for a litle while to allow the club to establish and settle that he wasn't allowed to do and now its time for his return.

So I guess if PMG were Langston the same would apply to them.

It would apply to anyone who had not received a penny off the debt their were owed for 3 yrs and the fact they have renegotiated the agreement 3 times to benefit the club and each time the club has let them down then yes it would apply to them also.

In response to yours and Annis` posts from earlier this evening.

Carl , I think there have been only 2 , not 3 , renegotiations of the original Langston agreement. The first was at the end of 2006 and the 2nd at the end of 2009.The first one is reflected in the May 2009 accounts as a liability , and the 2nd amendment (the one which may not have been signed off) shown as a note to those accounts.

Annis , the liability to Langston is currently shown as £26m. This is made up of £15m plus interest of £2m , then a further sum of £9m( that will never actually be paid out of company assets as it will be paid out of additional income coming from naming rights).

So , if a deal is not done with Langston before the end of 2009 , it will not create an extra debt for the club (the full debt is already in the books) , but will just prevent a further reduction in debts due.

Keith