" LANGSTON LOAN NOTES "

I have just read on this forum a piece which was written by Keith Morgan Since62 , I note that Keith is not in charge of all the facts and is on many issues factually incorrect.

Also Keith admits at the start that it is his ' strong belief ' so in fairness anyone who reads it as factually correct are only doing so on somebody else's opinion.

Firstly I cannot imagine how someone could call what PMG and Ridsdale did as a ' coup ', it was a far more sinister act than that, was it not that as recent as last year our trust put out a strongly worded letter for the attention of PMG ' to do the right thing '. Surprising really as what PMG do some years later is not seen as a ' coup '.

Loan note 1 was £24 million and repayable by 2011.

Loan Note 2 was brought in to satisfy the council, who stated a club of our stature could not fund a debt £24million so we need to address it, Deloitte and Touche came in and with the help of a stadium naming rights expert, helped deliver the new loan note of £15million plus £9million to come from naming rights, so this was not a request of Sam but of the council.

Loan note 3 came in to play as the club asked Langston to name a figure to settle early so they could interest potential investors with and there came the £10 million by Dec 31st 2010 plus 2 lots of bonuses of £5million. ( 1 for promotion, 1 for staying up, 1 for stadium naming rights ) any 2 of the 3 mentioned and not all 3.

Loan note 3 could have been settled in full by 31st December 2010 if the club paid £15million.

So Keith I believe has got loan note 2 confused with an idea that Peter Ridsdale put out ( £10 million by 2010, £11million by 2011, and so on ).

I like how Keith also states that all 3 were in published accounts up to May 2009 and says he knows he would believe on such matters, Keith are you telling me you trust Peter Ridsdale on such matters now ?

So in response to the debt only going up £1million is incorrect as there is no agreement in place, as Keith has stated there was an agreement that was never signed off which I have been told by both Peter Ridsdale and Sam Hammam that this is the case but a temporary agreement was signed off that got them through to the end of 2010, that time has now passed and the full amount of £24million is payable now, there is no time to go it has been passed.

For the full and up to date latest information then read tomorrow nights update. Revelation that maybe some are not expecting.

Carl,

Thanks as always. I'm guessing you have misinterpreted Keith meaning of "coup"; I'm guessing he meant...

"is the sudden, illegal deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment"

Arrrrgh, another 24 hours!!!

thanks carl,

is the update tomorrow all round good news?
or is it some bad news aswell?

I have just read on this forum a piece which was written by Keith Morgan Since62 , I note that Keith is not in charge of all the facts and is on many issues factually incorrect.

Also Keith admits at the start that it is his ' strong belief ' so in fairness anyone who reads it as factually correct are only doing so on somebody else's opinion.

Firstly I cannot imagine how someone could call what PMG and Ridsdale did as a ' coup ', it was a far more sinister act than that, was it not that as recent as last year our trust put out a strongly worded letter for the attention of PMG ' to do the right thing '. Surprising really as what PMG do some years later is not seen as a ' coup '.

Loan note 1 was £24 million and repayable by 2011.

Loan Note 2 was brought in to satisfy the council, who stated a club of our stature could not fund a debt £24million so we need to address it, Deloitte and Touche came in and with the help of a stadium naming rights expert, helped deliver the new loan note of £15million plus £9million to come from naming rights, so this was not a request of Sam but of the council.

Loan note 3 came in to play as the club asked Langston to name a figure to settle early so they could interest potential investors with and there came the £10 million by Dec 31st 2010 plus 2 lots of bonuses of £5million. ( 1 for promotion, 1 for staying up, 1 for stadium naming rights ) any 2 of the 3 mentioned and not all 3.

Loan note 3 could have been settled in full by 31st December 2010 if the club paid £15million.

So Keith I believe has got loan note 2 confused with an idea that Peter Ridsdale put out ( £10 million by 2010, £11million by 2011, and so on ).

I like how Keith also states that all 3 were in published accounts up to May 2009 and says he knows he would believe on such matters, Keith are you telling me you trust Peter Ridsdale on such matters now ?

So in response to the debt only going up £1million is incorrect as there is no agreement in place, as Keith has stated there was an agreement that was never signed off which I have been told by both Peter Ridsdale and Sam Hammam that this is the case but a temporary agreement was signed off that got them through to the end of 2010, that time has now passed and the full amount of £24million is payable now, there is no time to go it has been passed.

For the full and up to date latest information then read tomorrow nights update. Revelation that maybe some are not expecting.

Irony overload!!

I think you've misunderstood Since62s use of the word 'coup'..

I'm no Lawyer but if I was I'd be rubbing my hands.
Talk about entering murky waters.
Risdale will have to give evidence in court.
Sam will have to as well.

lol.

if either of these men told you it was Wednesday 05 january 2011
you'd have to look at the calender to confirm it.

Cheers Carl. ... but I'm still none the wiser, If I owed you a tenner and you said to me "if you don't pay me back before midnight tonight then you have to pay me £24"...then I'd make sure I'd pay you...unless I didn't have the money

Whether I have misinterpreted Keith's take on a ' coup ' is irrelevant, it is how or whether the loan note( debt) stands at £10million, £11million or a minimum of £24million.

Cheers Carl. ... but I'm still none the wiser, If I owed you a tenner and you said to me "if you don't pay me back before midnight tonight then you have to pay me £24"...then I'd make sure I'd pay you...unless I didn't have the money

Marc, the Malaysians don't own the club, so they don't owe Langston, do they ?

Cheers Carl. ... but I'm still none the wiser, If I owed you a tenner and you said to me "if you don't pay me back before midnight tonight then you have to pay me £24"...then I'd make sure I'd pay you...unless I didn't have the money

Marc, the Malaysians don't own the club, so they don't owe Langston, do they ?

The penny just dropped..takes me a while

Carl I assume Since 62 believes the Auditors who carried out the audit and signed them off, it's got nothing to do with PR. Futher and I point this out again Since 62 put this together with legally binding published accounts along with an accountant who specialises in this area.

I'm no Lawyer but if I was I'd be rubbing my hands.
Talk about entering murky waters.
Risdale will have to give evidence in court.
Sam will have to as well.

lol.

if either of these men told you it was Wednesday 05 january 2011
you'd have to look at the calender to confirm it.

SPOT ON.
WHO CARES ANYHOW.
THIS COULD DRAG ON FOR YEARS.

Cheers Carl. ... but I'm still none the wiser, If I owed you a tenner and you said to me "if you don't pay me back before midnight tonight then you have to pay me £24"...then I'd make sure I'd pay you...unless I didn't have the money

Marc, the Malaysians don't own the club, so they don't owe Langston, do they ?

they might never own the club carl,if thats what the debt is!supporting city is never easy

You don't understand what coup means so I'm unsure if the rest of what you say is right or not

so if no one owns cardiff city no one owes langston?????????????????????????

Carl I assume Since 62 believes the Auditors who carried out the audit and signed them off, it's got nothing to do with PR. Futher and I point this out again Since 62 put this together with legally binding published accounts along with an accountant who specialises in this area.

You don't understand what coup means so I'm unsure if the rest of what you say is right or not

botw2

I can see by your previous post to another member on here, what type of person you are


botw2 wrote
Re: R.E JAY BOTHROYD (HOPE IT'S A TYPO!)
Best fans I've ever had would be the correct grammar

what should he say?

Best fans I've ever.....?

Carl I assume Since 62 believes the Auditors who carried out the audit and signed them off, it's got nothing to do with PR. Futher and I point this out again Since 62 put this together with legally binding published accounts along with an accountant who specialises in this area.

I would like someone to show us the published accounts where it states that the debt rises by a £1million a year each year up to 2016.

This was something that Ridsdale stated was the case.

so if no one owns cardiff city no one owes langston?????????????????????????

CCFC.

Carl, like many others i'm not privy t the confidential info. you've been shown, but form what is openly available this is how i see it.

''It could in theory be brought back to £24m+

Remember the court case, well that was the crux of it. Sam argued that the new (2nd ) agreement for £15m was unlawful and that it should revert to the 1st (£24m+interest). He went for summary judgement - i.e that the club had no defense and this was overruled.

It is possible that he could win in a full court case, but as above, it would cost him a fortune, and he wouldnt be any better off as the club would go into admin and has £20m of secured debt to pay out before he'll get a penny.

We dont have anywhere near £20m of SALEABLE assets. (Contrary to PR's bollox).''

I beleive what you are saying (trying to remember back to previous debates on this) is that the 2nd agreement no longer has any validity as the 3rd on supercedes it. If so, are you certain on this -especially if the 3rd agreement is only valid for 1 year ? Surely the only way note 1 would ever become valid would be through a full court case.

Also, if the 3rd agreement was only valid for 1 year then why have the stepped (£1m a year) clause in it.

Loan note 1 was actually repayable by 31 dec 2011. Loan note 2 had nothing repayable until 2016, it beggars beleif that anything would have been signed by an officer of the club which would allow loan note 1 to possibly become valid again -loan note 3 wasnt really much of an improvement on loan note 2 on the face of it -as (posted before), the moment loan note 1 becomes valid again the club is insolvent

Carl, like many others i'm not privy t the confidential info. you've been shown, but form what is openly available this is how i see it.

''It could in theory be brought back to £24m+

Remember the court case, well that was the crux of it. Sam argued that the new (2nd ) agreement for £15m was unlawful and that it should revert to the 1st (£24m+interest). He went for summary judgement - i.e that the club had no defense and this was overruled.

It is possible that he could win in a full court case, but as above, it would cost him a fortune, and he wouldnt be any better off as the club would go into admin and has £20m of secured debt to pay out before he'll get a penny.

We dont have anywhere near £20m of SALEABLE assets. (Contrary to PR's bollox).''

I beleive what you are saying (trying to remember back to previous debates on this) is that the 2nd agreement no longer has any validity as the 3rd on supercedes it. If so, are you certain on this -especially if the 3rd agreement is only valid for 1 year ? Surely the only way note 1 would ever become valid would be through a full court case.

Also, if the 3rd agreement was only valid for 1 year then why have the stepped (£1m a year) clause in it.

Loan note 1 was actually repayable by 31 dec 2011. Loan note 2 had nothing repayable until 2016, it beggars beleif that anything would have been signed by an officer of the club which would allow loan note 1 to possibly become valid again -loan note 3 wasnt really much of an improvement on loan note 2 on the face of it -as (posted before), the moment loan note 1 becomes valid again the club is insolvent

Tim, whether loan note 1 or 2 is in play is irrelevant to this debate as both are set for a minimum of £24million plus other bits.

It would probably take a court case, in my opinion, to determine which is in force of those two.

Loan note 3 never did have the stepped £1million repayments in it, those were only ever mooted as an idea, then got as far as being drafted up but never signed off, for those who attended the Muni meeting with PR will remember him saying that the paperwork was done but there were a few bits to straighten out. These bits were never straightened out !

The signed documents that relate to the December 31st 2010 figure, were a temporary agreement until the full and final agreement was signed off, giving potential investors the reduced figure to settle ' in the meantime' if necessary.

Carl,

From what you are saying on loan note 3, and assuming we go up which we will, and stay up which we will... we would still have had to pay Langstone £10m + £5m + £5m = £20m which is not a massive saving over £24m anyway. Making them wait could possibly prompt a better lower settlement couldn't it?

Either way Langson want £20 million at least.

No chance.

carl the club have been paying 83kish a month to langstone what agreement was that in?

carl the club have been paying 83kish a month to langstone what agreement was that in?

Is this true? Since when have they been doing that?

we could buy some players with that!

carl the club have been paying 83kish a month to langstone what agreement was that in?

Yes they have Wez and thats all been paid right up to date, as to which agreement its in Carl knows that answer, All I look at are the Final Facts, Which are at This Moment in time The Club Now Owe Langston £24 Mill plus(Around £28 Mill with interest ect).
But Carl has Some Good news Tomorrow Night on it

Probably been answered before, but is it secured debt?

carl the club have been paying 83kish a month to langstone what agreement was that in?

Yes they have Wez and thats all been paid right up to date, as to which agreement its in Carl knows that answer, All I look at are the Final Facts, Which are at This Moment in time The Club Now Owe Langston £24 Mill plus(Around £28 Mill with interest ect).
But Carl has Some Good news Tomorrow Night on it

so really the club are only paying intrest with those payments on the a 10 million figure if the intrest is 10%?
hope its good news weve all been waiting for

I figured he meant coup as in the way an army takes advantage of a situation to take control of a country so not a good thing not as happy that PMG did it.

Carl, like many others i'm not privy t the confidential info. you've been shown, but form what is openly available this is how i see it.

''It could in theory be brought back to £24m+

Remember the court case, well that was the crux of it. Sam argued that the new (2nd ) agreement for £15m was unlawful and that it should revert to the 1st (£24m+interest). He went for summary judgement - i.e that the club had no defense and this was overruled.

It is possible that he could win in a full court case, but as above, it would cost him a fortune, and he wouldnt be any better off as the club would go into admin and has £20m of secured debt to pay out before he'll get a penny.

We dont have anywhere near £20m of SALEABLE assets. (Contrary to PR's bollox).''

I beleive what you are saying (trying to remember back to previous debates on this) is that the 2nd agreement no longer has any validity as the 3rd on supercedes it. If so, are you certain on this -especially if the 3rd agreement is only valid for 1 year ? Surely the only way note 1 would ever become valid would be through a full court case.

Also, if the 3rd agreement was only valid for 1 year then why have the stepped (£1m a year) clause in it.

Loan note 1 was actually repayable by 31 dec 2011. Loan note 2 had nothing repayable until 2016, it beggars beleif that anything would have been signed by an officer of the club which would allow loan note 1 to possibly become valid again -loan note 3 wasnt really much of an improvement on loan note 2 on the face of it -as (posted before), the moment loan note 1 becomes valid again the club is insolvent

Tim, whether loan note 1 or 2 is in play is irrelevant to this debate as both are set for a minimum of £24million plus other bits.

It would probably take a court case, in my opinion, to determine which is in force of those two.

Loan note 3 never did have the stepped £1million repayments in it, those were only ever mooted as an idea, then got as far as being drafted up but never signed off, for those who attended the Muni meeting with PR will remember him saying that the paperwork was done but there were a few bits to straighten out. These bits were never straightened out !

The signed documents that relate to the December 31st 2010 figure, were a temporary agreement until the full and final agreement was signed off, giving potential investors the reduced figure to settle ' in the meantime' if necessary.

Carl. It is relevant. Loan note 2 is for £15m repayable by 31/12/2016.

I had the accounts in front of me when I made the post last night and it was there in black and white.