http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/...ardiff-city-fear-administration-club-10787626 Sources at the club have told us that if Langston are successful and demand immediate payment up-front, which could happen, the ramifications might be severe for the Welsh club. The Bluebirds, who are currently under a transfer embargo for breaching the Football League’s Financial Fair Play regulations, could find themselves unable to settle the amount, with the prospect then of the club being plunged into administration or even liquidation.
Maybe the threat is real but I can't see Tan allowing his debt to go into administration for the sake of £5m. If he was having a fire sale Marshall, Mason, Noone would all be gone already. There's no way we'd be adding any players and only loaning out the odd youngster. If Tan wants us to go bust he can push the button any moment he wants, he certainly doesn't need Hamman's claim for £5m to push him over the edge. I believe the Admin scenario is being presented by the lawyers to try to avoid immediate settlement should they lose the case. I might be wrong but if we go down the admin route Tan will get his 10p (or whatever) in the pound the same as all the other creditors. That'll cost him a lot more than £5.7m. On the plus side the ground will be packed again when all the 10,000 die hards all come running back because Tan has gone......... We might not have a ground as we wouldn't own the CCS any more, maybe our council will be kind enough to build us one for free and let us play there for nothing too............
More brinksmanship by both sides. I worry about this wanting to know who we are paying bit. Surely that question should have been asked before the first £15m was paid? ASA ever, there is more to this that meets the eye but Stevo is right. Tan's debt is £150m at least. Would he really risk 90% of that for £6m? There might be more FFP penalties in the future by him paying up another club debt but that is more acceptable than admin and a possibly quick slide down the slippery pipe.
I doubt Tan paying it would have any impact on FFP - the debt already existed in the accounts and isn't new so shouldn't add to accumulated losses.
It would add to the amount put into the club by Tan which I think has been the main issue in the FFP sanction - something to do with a limit on loans from owners in relation to losses made. Could be totally wrong though.
I agree with Sparks about the FFP. The way I read Tan's handling of the Langston debt is (my opinion solely based on the media reporting of how it's been handled); I think pretty much everyone believes Sam and Langston is one and the same. I also think our accounts for the period of the loan notes probably show where a significant amount of capital was introduced, hence Tans willingness to pay back a large chunk of the loan. However you get the impression the club thinks the £24m figure is inflated and this attempt to 'out' Langston will revolve around a future attempt to get them to prove where/when the full amount supposedly owed was lent other than these 'loan notes' the whole thing seems to revolve around.
I agree it's all a bit confusing Bluey, but if you take on board that paying off an existing debt by introducing new capital, in so doing you are also reducing the debt on the balance sheet - or at least not increasing it. The one cancels out the other. If new money is introduced by Tan to support additional expenditure on new players, their pay and staffing costs, it would be a different matter and would certainly fall foul of the FFP rules.
When Tan bought the club, he did due diligence so he knew about the debt. He acquiesced in it by re-structuring the payment terms. Why is he now defending it? As I read it, the club has no defence. It's got nothing to do with Hamman. He is just a front for Langstone. Langstone is owed money, City have to pay it. Tan just should accept it, pay it - it's loose change for him - and get on with more important things like putting the interests of the fans and the club first ie sack Slade, and get in 2 decent loanees and see where we go from there.
It's difficult to see what Tan stands to gain from this action. What are his real motives? It can't be because he can't afford to pay it. The deal was set up between him (his advisers) and Hamman/Langston in what we can only assume was good faith with every intent to pay out in full. He must have known that Hamman wouldn't walk away if the club just stopped paying the agreed monthly payments. Agree totally with Nin - get the thing bloody sorted and concentrate all efforts on the club and its' future not the past.
I think his real motive is to show Sam the scam has lied all along and is Langstones, not just their representative. I just hope Tan wins this one and we get rid of Hamman finally. He has cast a shadow over this club for far too long.
The vast majority of us want Hamman gone. There are very few on a different wavelength and even their numbers and posturings are diminishing. One particular thing strikes me about this latest "journalism". The court case is very real but the administration threat though always a possibility is merely Tuckerspeak. He wrote the same article in the Mirror this morning and has repeated it all virtually word for word on WOL. He's promoting the scaremongering again in another "what if" article again on WOL. I don't particularly dislike the bloke, but Tucker should put his laptop down for a while and shut his gob about the matter.
I remember Sam in the Royal Oak Bryncethin swearing infront of a packed house that it was HIS money that he was putting into the club...all lies, his money that he was lending us from his credit company would have been more appropriate, no looks on him since learning of his lending...to$$ pot just like his henchmen, well done VT for stringing him along...bit of his own medicine and he dont like it,...... well up his
I think I have read somewhere that because no one knows who the directors of Langston are there could be a thought of money laundering and that Cardiff need to cover themselves. Not sure so it could be just two + two = 640
Probably right Dai although perhaps it should have been considered when the first £15m was paid? FFB - similar mathematic issue to when Dembe Ba was asked about how much effort he gave for Newcastle. Bearing in mind their shirt sponsors were Wonga, he said every game he gave 1520%.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/...cardiff-citys-battle-langston-threat-10791371 Just reading that article. Unless I've missed something about the Admin process how on earth do WOL know that Tan would get 25p in the £? Him and Langston could end up with a fraction of that (or more) depending on how the Adminstrator manages to raise funds surely?
You can't predict the final return to creditors of a company in administration. As a debenture holding creditor Tan could put the club into administration himself and elect to appoint his own choice of administrators, but would have no say in the process as the business would be taken completely out of his hands. Only the eventual realisation of assets would determine the final dividend to be issued to the creditors. Tan would obviously be by far the biggest but for WOL to come up with 25p in the pound at this stage is farcical. The other farcical thing is that this whole load of crap from WOL is bullshit - there is no way the club will go into administration over this Hamman action. It's not impossible that at some time Tan might see fit to do it but it would in his own time an of his own making.
Not quite sure what the big deal is to be honest. Langstone get a judgment; they seek to enforce it. On the assumption that Mr Tan has given a PG to Langstone for the clubs debt when it was restructured, who do they enforce it against - the club as 1st defendant or the 2nd defendant as guarantor of the 1st defendant, Mr Tan?
It's just further evidence that lazy journo's sit there and make this **** up as they go along. If you don't know how the process works either don't write about it or find out and do your job properly.
