Would You Want Sam Back?

For me its a straight up NO, Firstly would be the smug posts by ankles and co, getting the inside info etc.. its enough to make u cringe just thinking bout it, And secondly ppl may say if it helps sort langston so b it.. sorry i dont buy into it, vt can easily pay and get rid.. and last but not least sam almost killed us and for that reason alone i will never forgive him the fat prick,

I am deeply troubled by the idea of it.......

I'm just trying to remember what it was like under his leadership. I remember loving the guy - charismatic and passionate about the club. Before Sam, signing anyone for a transfer fee was unthinkable. I remember the excitement, then, when we spent 1 million pounds on Peter Thorne! I was gutted when he announced he was leaving. Of course, little did we know, that Sam didn't have as much money as we all thought he did - I'm happy to believe that he was just so desperate for the club to reach the PL, he took money from wherever he could get it. ie, loan notes. Disastrous club management, although not malicious, was his downfall and of course how he has conducted himself since leaving - basically holding the club to ransom.

To be honest, I would rather that he had no involvement with the club, but if he is going to be, I'm sure Tan is wise enough not to give him an executive role that has any bearings on the financial running of the club.

.....thin end of the wedge springs to mind.....

at least the city council got it right when they said no to dealing with sam.
like others, i too fell for his charisma and rhetoric and assumed he was putting his money into the club.
ask wimbledon, who nicked-named him sam the sham. he left them without a ground having sold theirs for building land and it is my view that is what his intention was at ninian park. had he stayed we would have ended up like wimbledon - groundless
don't like him and don't trust him. you have to question the likes of annis, and say "why with sam's record do you follow him"?
the expression duplicious basxard springs to mind

in answer to the question, no i don't want him back. having said that we are going to have to deal and reach agreement with him to resolve the loan note issue.

not that i will get told anything or that anybody will listen, but tomorrow if the opportunity presents itself will bend the ear of anybody that will listen

davewebber65 wrote:at least the city council got it right when they said no to dealing with sam.
like others, i too fell for his charisma and rhetoric and assumed he was putting his money into the club.
ask wimbledon, who nicked-named him sam the sham. he left them without a ground having sold theirs for building land and it is my view that is what his intention was at ninian park. had he stayed we would have ended up like wimbledon - groundlessdon't like him and don't trust him. you have to question the likes of annis, and say "why with sam's record do you follow him"?
the expression duplicious basxard springs to mind

in answer to the question, no i don't want him back. having said that we are going to have to deal and reach agreement with him to resolve the loan note issue.

I thought Sam brought in Peter Ridsdale with the specific brief to deliver the new stadium? Or do I have that wrong?

yes, you are right, but remember wimbledon.
1. he buys share in the club
2 arranges for the club's ground to be held by a private company
3 he is a director of that company
4 sam bought out the covenant on the ground saying that the land was for recreational use only
5 sold the land to safeway for £30m
6 how much are the loan notes for
7 wimbledon now without a home ground

I'd rather s**t in my hands and clap. I genuinely would.

Can't see the problem. He'd not be allowed anywhere near the purse strings. I don't know why people are creating all this angst over something that is only cosmetic. He's a good character to have around as long as doesn't have any say with the finances.

He could work in the catering areas, selling Sam Hammamburgers (no chips, cos we'll have had them). Obviously he'd have a lot to ketchup on, but he might even cook our goose for us.

Or put him in the Bartley mascot suit, I'd be happy with that. No problem with him walking round the pitch then.

I don't care. I don't like the guy but as Judge mentioned, I think Tan would give him enough to keep him happy but not enough to cause problems.

I could not see for the life of me why VT would want to woo Sam Hamman, but then the thought that struck me today was that the most cost-effective settlement for City would be to offer Sam Hamman an equity stake in lieu of the Langstone debt.

The club is worth something now we have made it into the Premier League, which will appeal to Sam. An intial, say, £30m stake reduces Tan's overall exposure (risk) and leaves Sam in pole position to regain control of the club in the future.........