Tan v Hamman

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
The Langston debt had been settled. The terms were quite clear on the face of it from that article - £15M up front and £1M a year for 7 years thereafter paid quarterly.

The question is why has it been deemed necessary for Dalman to request clarification of Langston's details at this point.

Was it always a requirement as part of the agreement that Hamman has reneged on, or is Tan trying to cut the cord on his growing debt obligation?

Very interesting but not what we need to focus on now at the club.
 
Tan is cashing in his chips Spark. If the Sam agreement was in any way suspect Tan wouldn't have paid a single penny. Out of the frying pan into the fire and back in the frying pan again.
 
Tan will send his henchmen around to Sam's house, with search warrants claiming financial irregularities.....will dig up something unpleasant, but unrelated regarding Sam's private life and will blackmail Sam into a climb-down and apology. Amazing what you can get away with if you have enough money/power. Now where have I heard this before.....
 
whiffletree said:
Tan will send his henchmen around to Sam's house, with search warrants claiming financial irregularities.....will dig up something unpleasant, but unrelated regarding Sam's private life and will blackmail Sam into a climb-down and apology. Amazing what you can get away with if you have enough money/power. Now where have I heard this before.....
Click to expand...


Lets hope so, it'll save £6m if he can <laugh>

(please don't take that as a serious response)
 
What I can't get my head around is that when the structured deal was struck with Langston to repay them, it must have been agreed without knowing who was actually behind them.

If that was the case then, why is Dalman now saying he's not prepared to sanction any more payments as per the agreement without being told? From an outsider's point of view, it doesn't seem to make (legal) sense.

I'd have thought City wouldn't have a leg to stand on refusing to pay - unless of course Tan has now found out something and is waiting for Sam's challenge and then bring it up in court.
 
Oldsparkey said:
What I can't get my head around is that when the structured deal was struck with Langston to repay them, it must have been agreed without knowing who was actually behind them.

If that was the case then, why is Dalman now saying he's not prepared to sanction any more payments as per the agreement without being told? From an outsider's point of view, it doesn't seem to make (legal) sense.

I'd have thought City wouldn't have a leg to stand on refusing to pay - unless of course Tan has now found out something and is waiting for Sam's challenge and then bring it up in court.
Click to expand...


Knowing Tan's history it would suggest he believes he has found some leverage. Otherwise I agree it would seem a pointless stand (which would be very unTan like imo).
 
depends on who got the money for a court battle really, and like sparky says, it will reveal sam as the man behind this scam and im not sure he`s up for his unmasking just yet,...............but tbh i wouldn't trust either of these fking muppets, trouble is its not just us lads football is full of these cun.ts with money playing with our clubs.
 
Why do cardiff employ crooks as their owners. No good will come out of this and yet another soap opera to begin only this time is crook V crook....it should be very interesting...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back