| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale 08:14 - Dec 16 with 16948 views | Outsider |
Please can you collectively request in writing to the Trust chairman and existing board members that the proposed share sale be paused until you have had adequate time to review the proposal properly, with external specialist assistance as necessary, and decide on your considered opinions.
I would recommend that you also inform the chairman and other board members that if they do not agree to this request in writing, that you plan to resign immediately, which I believe would leave the board non-quorate again and therefore not able to legally proceed with the proposed share sale. Article 54 of the Trust Model Rules states “With effect from the society’s first annual general meeting, the society board is to have not less than 12 and not more than 15 members …”
With ex-chairman Phil Sumbler confirming in writing yesterday that he no longer believes the proposed share sale is in the best interests of the Swans Trust (which means the vote by Trust members in the summer was influenced by information that Phil Sumbler no longer supports), there are material grounds to insist that the Trust board does not proceed with the proposed share sale and re-examines its options, including legal action, and further consults with ordinary Trust members.
Without making your expectations to the chairman and other board members very clear and documenting them, there is risk that the existing Trust board will proceed to sign-off on the proposed share sale based on the mandate they received from the member vote in the summer. The opinions expressed by the Trust chairman and other board members at the Trust forum meeting last Thursday illustrates the reality of this risk.
Thank you for representing the ordinary members of the Trust and ensuring that the Trust board takes decisions that are in the best interests of the Trust. |  | | |  |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 23:37 - Dec 17 with 2385 views | Outsider |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 23:24 - Dec 17 by londonlisa2001 |
I'd be very surprised if Dai spends much of his time on governance. I may be wrong, but I think that's the remit of the Trust secretary. Certainly unlikely to be part of what Dai has looked at. |
That's interesting. The lawyers I work with pay close attention to governance and due process and advise board administrators like the secretary accordingly. If Dai has not been paying much attention to governance, you might ask him what he has been working on recently? I see his online CV highlights his role as legal affiliate to the Swans Trust and its 21% shareholding. | | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 00:22 - Dec 18 with 2354 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 23:37 - Dec 17 by Outsider |
That's interesting. The lawyers I work with pay close attention to governance and due process and advise board administrators like the secretary accordingly. If Dai has not been paying much attention to governance, you might ask him what he has been working on recently? I see his online CV highlights his role as legal affiliate to the Swans Trust and its 21% shareholding. |
I was under the impression that he is the person that the trust rely in for legal stuff like the deal, the stuff with the QC etc, not their own internal legal affairs while the Trust secretary is more like a company secretary. I may be wrong though. Uxbridge etc would know more than me on that. I've only been involved for a week... | | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 07:33 - Dec 18 with 2292 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 23:15 - Dec 17 by londonlisa2001 |
Well if the next board meeting is in say , 4 weeks or so and 2 and a half of those weeks are Christmas and New Year, you have a different experience to mine of how quickly any documents will get turned by legal teams in that timescale... |
Leaving aside which one of us can read a calendar better (!) I don't see any real reason why any issues can't be bottomed out between the various parties within the remaining window rather than using the next board meeting as another opportunity to review and revert. Review yes, but the rest needs to be done beforehand, one way or another. |  |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 08:05 - Dec 18 with 2266 views | MoscowJack |
Ux, now that 2 of the 3 negotiating have left the Trust, could you inform us of who's now in charge of that please? | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 08:23 - Dec 18 with 2238 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 08:05 - Dec 18 by MoscowJack |
Ux, now that 2 of the 3 negotiating have left the Trust, could you inform us of who's now in charge of that please? |
In fairness, it's been said plenty of times now that the discussions are between the two legal teams. | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 08:34 - Dec 18 with 2198 views | MoscowJack |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 08:23 - Dec 18 by Uxbridge |
In fairness, it's been said plenty of times now that the discussions are between the two legal teams. |
Sorry if I missed it but you know how hard it is to keep up with these threads, especially when you're travelling a lot.
So....the legal teams are doing what? Dotting "Is" and crossing "Ts"?
Normally, from my experience, it goes to legal once the framework of the agreement has been made and it's just becomes a matter of getting the document signed off from a legal standpoint.
Does this mean that the major content of the document has been accepted by the majority of the Trust Board? | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 08:34 - Dec 18 with 2198 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 07:33 - Dec 18 by Uxbridge |
Leaving aside which one of us can read a calendar better (!) I don't see any real reason why any issues can't be bottomed out between the various parties within the remaining window rather than using the next board meeting as another opportunity to review and revert. Review yes, but the rest needs to be done beforehand, one way or another. |
Excuse my french here Ux, because I'm not one to be using all the posh words. But f*ck the "bottoming out with the various parties". You lot have been elected to represent the members, and I can pretty much guarantee that the bulk of members want a revote due to the terms changing, and what has come to light in the last few days.
I'm sorry but you lot have not got the right to be playing russian roulette with an American Hedge Fund until your members (including me) have had chance to vote. Things have changed since the original, you know that, you all know that, it shouldn't even be up for discussion! New vote! |  | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 08:56 - Dec 18 with 2164 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 08:34 - Dec 18 by MoscowJack |
Sorry if I missed it but you know how hard it is to keep up with these threads, especially when you're travelling a lot.
So....the legal teams are doing what? Dotting "Is" and crossing "Ts"?
Normally, from my experience, it goes to legal once the framework of the agreement has been made and it's just becomes a matter of getting the document signed off from a legal standpoint.
Does this mean that the major content of the document has been accepted by the majority of the Trust Board? |
Er ... Yes, exactly. That's the whole point! | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 09:02 - Dec 18 with 2153 views | Swanzay |
FAO Ux, are the Trust monitoring the changing "landscape" of recent weeks and factoring that in, in any way?
Or are they just steadfast to complete the sale, as per the original vote? |  | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 09:05 - Dec 18 with 2149 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 08:34 - Dec 18 by 34dfgdf54 |
Excuse my french here Ux, because I'm not one to be using all the posh words. But f*ck the "bottoming out with the various parties". You lot have been elected to represent the members, and I can pretty much guarantee that the bulk of members want a revote due to the terms changing, and what has come to light in the last few days.
I'm sorry but you lot have not got the right to be playing russian roulette with an American Hedge Fund until your members (including me) have had chance to vote. Things have changed since the original, you know that, you all know that, it shouldn't even be up for discussion! New vote! |
This whole "bulk of the members" malarkey. It gets nobody anywhere. You can't know that.
You talk about things coming to light over the last few days. What are they, in substance? The case for the revote, at least from what I've seen on here, has hinged entirely around whether the working relationship has broken down. You say that's not up for discussion, yet that's based on one of the three people who had that working relationship saying so. Two did not at the time of the November meeting. It's absolutely up for discussion.
As I see it, there are three paths for this deal not proceeding.
Firstly, is the finalised deal different to that presented to the members. As of now, in terms of the actual terms, that is far from clear. The identifiable terms are, as it stands, the same.
Secondly, will anything come up in the finalised documents that make elements of that deal unenforceable. That is something to be covered in the legal discussions. Far from clear yet.
Thirdly, has the view of the membership changed? Again, far from clear, however as I've said on this very thread (thanks for noticing) I think we're in a place where the deal should be ratified at the AGM.
On a final note from me, as I do have a day job, the scenarios open for the Trust are still the same as were the case this past summer. I'm hoping, rather than just attempting to scupper one of them, the case is also made for one of the other two options, rather than just attempting to stop things happening. Failure to plan for that, and it won't end well. | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 09:08 - Dec 18 with 2139 views | MoscowJack |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 08:56 - Dec 18 by Uxbridge |
Er ... Yes, exactly. That's the whole point! |
So are you saying that Dai Little has confirmed that he won't be able to sign off until next year and the deal can't be signed off without his agreement?
I am more than a little worried that a deal could easily be signed off and done/dusted before anyone has a chance to put an official stop to the negotiations.
Let's imagine, just for one second, that it's someone's intention to do this.....is it possible? | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 09:09 - Dec 18 with 2136 views | Neath_Jack |
Those of you that keep insinuating that Ux is meant to be one of the "good guys" on the board, really??
He comes across as being very aloof from the rest of us plebs, as you can see from his last reply to Moscow alone. I do not believe for one minute that he is on "our side", not a chance.
Get him voted off the board along with the rest of the old dithering farts.
The only ones we know that are with us, are Lisa and ECB, the rest, until proven otherwise, are going to get this deal signed ASAP. |  |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 09:49 - Dec 18 with 2069 views | union_jack |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 09:09 - Dec 18 by Neath_Jack |
Those of you that keep insinuating that Ux is meant to be one of the "good guys" on the board, really??
He comes across as being very aloof from the rest of us plebs, as you can see from his last reply to Moscow alone. I do not believe for one minute that he is on "our side", not a chance.
Get him voted off the board along with the rest of the old dithering farts.
The only ones we know that are with us, are Lisa and ECB, the rest, until proven otherwise, are going to get this deal signed ASAP. |
Certainly, if they haven't before, true colours are being shown! |  |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:05 - Dec 18 with 2046 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 09:49 - Dec 18 by union_jack |
Certainly, if they haven't before, true colours are being shown! |
And the posts like yours, and the other above, are the reason why I wonder why I bang my head against a brick wall by posting on here, especially when the same questions are being constantly raised, responses ignored and insults chucked around like confetti. Although I do take Nick's point that discussions get missed.
You'll find that out yourself soon enough anyway. Or ask the ex Trust bods in your new group. | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:08 - Dec 18 with 2037 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 09:08 - Dec 18 by MoscowJack |
So are you saying that Dai Little has confirmed that he won't be able to sign off until next year and the deal can't be signed off without his agreement?
I am more than a little worried that a deal could easily be signed off and done/dusted before anyone has a chance to put an official stop to the negotiations.
Let's imagine, just for one second, that it's someone's intention to do this.....is it possible? |
There's no way this deal gets signed off without the legal affiliate signing off on it, and there's no way this deal gets signed without the Trust board signing off on it. Is it technically possible that could happen before the AGM? Sure, but it's not feasible.
This reply will no doubt seen as flippant in some way, but it's really that simple. | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:09 - Dec 18 with 2033 views | OhRobbieRobbie |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 09:05 - Dec 18 by Uxbridge |
This whole "bulk of the members" malarkey. It gets nobody anywhere. You can't know that.
You talk about things coming to light over the last few days. What are they, in substance? The case for the revote, at least from what I've seen on here, has hinged entirely around whether the working relationship has broken down. You say that's not up for discussion, yet that's based on one of the three people who had that working relationship saying so. Two did not at the time of the November meeting. It's absolutely up for discussion.
As I see it, there are three paths for this deal not proceeding.
Firstly, is the finalised deal different to that presented to the members. As of now, in terms of the actual terms, that is far from clear. The identifiable terms are, as it stands, the same.
Secondly, will anything come up in the finalised documents that make elements of that deal unenforceable. That is something to be covered in the legal discussions. Far from clear yet.
Thirdly, has the view of the membership changed? Again, far from clear, however as I've said on this very thread (thanks for noticing) I think we're in a place where the deal should be ratified at the AGM.
On a final note from me, as I do have a day job, the scenarios open for the Trust are still the same as were the case this past summer. I'm hoping, rather than just attempting to scupper one of them, the case is also made for one of the other two options, rather than just attempting to stop things happening. Failure to plan for that, and it won't end well. |
This is a worrying, arrogant statement. If we don't know what 'the bulk of members' are now thinking then how the hell do you know? And it's your responsibility to know ... But you don't!
In my straw poll (which at this stage is more than you have demonstrated) of around 20-30 trust members I know who voted, ALL OF THEM would now vote against proceeding with the deal.
Can somebody put up a poll on here for people who voted to accept the deal on whether or not they would now vote differently based on news that has come to light since the vote?
It's very worrying that views are being dismissed by the people supposedly representing those views, so let's get something visual in front of them to show what members' current stances are. |  | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:17 - Dec 18 with 2014 views | union_jack |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:05 - Dec 18 by Uxbridge |
And the posts like yours, and the other above, are the reason why I wonder why I bang my head against a brick wall by posting on here, especially when the same questions are being constantly raised, responses ignored and insults chucked around like confetti. Although I do take Nick's point that discussions get missed.
You'll find that out yourself soon enough anyway. Or ask the ex Trust bods in your new group. |
The thing is Ux is we'd all really like to know why you and others within the Trust are galloping in like a blinkered horse to get this deal done.
The mood has changed significantly and you know that. Yet the Trust want to ignore the feelings of its members. Put yourself in our shoes. Doesn't that seem a little bit suspicious?
The SCSA is a body that is questioning this, quite legitimately, and has the fans of our club at its heart. The same cannot be said of the `Trust at this moment in time.
Call for a revote and let's settle this once and for all. What's to be afraid of? | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:19 - Dec 18 with 2002 views | monmouth |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 09:49 - Dec 18 by union_jack |
Certainly, if they haven't before, true colours are being shown! |
I'm as anti this deal as can be, but Ux is actually accurate in what he is saying. I think ratification or rejection at the AGM is probably the best that can be hoped for here, or that the deal is legally unenforceable due to the Delaware wriggle room, which of course comes back to showing that the counterparty is untrustworthy. In fact I would argue that the Delaware Incorporation alone and the ownership structure makes the counterparty wholly unreliable already......
I still don't think that the individuals on the Trust Board realise the personal aspects they might be running with here mind. Maybe they do, but there will be a lot of anger if and when when the Trust is cast aside for a relative pittance and the Yanks rape the club. Motives will be questioned closely. Those that push this through with no furher member scrutiny, without making their objections public, could be in for an uncomfortable time under a critical hindsight lens. I've had it as an innocent party in business and it was unpleasant, no very unpleasant, no extremely unpleasant. Football is even more emotional.
This is not an arms length, analytical, accounting or academic exercise. [Post edited 18 Dec 2017 10:20]
|  |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:20 - Dec 18 with 2000 views | chad |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:08 - Dec 18 by Uxbridge |
There's no way this deal gets signed off without the legal affiliate signing off on it, and there's no way this deal gets signed without the Trust board signing off on it. Is it technically possible that could happen before the AGM? Sure, but it's not feasible.
This reply will no doubt seen as flippant in some way, but it's really that simple. |
No that does not appear flippant to me
But if accurate the nice straightforward response for information that people were seeking
thank you |  | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:25 - Dec 18 with 1984 views | chad |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:19 - Dec 18 by monmouth |
I'm as anti this deal as can be, but Ux is actually accurate in what he is saying. I think ratification or rejection at the AGM is probably the best that can be hoped for here, or that the deal is legally unenforceable due to the Delaware wriggle room, which of course comes back to showing that the counterparty is untrustworthy. In fact I would argue that the Delaware Incorporation alone and the ownership structure makes the counterparty wholly unreliable already......
I still don't think that the individuals on the Trust Board realise the personal aspects they might be running with here mind. Maybe they do, but there will be a lot of anger if and when when the Trust is cast aside for a relative pittance and the Yanks rape the club. Motives will be questioned closely. Those that push this through with no furher member scrutiny, without making their objections public, could be in for an uncomfortable time under a critical hindsight lens. I've had it as an innocent party in business and it was unpleasant, no very unpleasant, no extremely unpleasant. Football is even more emotional.
This is not an arms length, analytical, accounting or academic exercise. [Post edited 18 Dec 2017 10:20]
|
lets hope they get the message
from my epistle to the Trustonians
I would state that if the deal is pushed ahead in knowledge of these requests, and contrary to reassurances given to the membership re the deal, then those responsible will be seen as personally liable for the substantial consequences. | | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:28 - Dec 18 with 1979 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:17 - Dec 18 by union_jack |
The thing is Ux is we'd all really like to know why you and others within the Trust are galloping in like a blinkered horse to get this deal done.
The mood has changed significantly and you know that. Yet the Trust want to ignore the feelings of its members. Put yourself in our shoes. Doesn't that seem a little bit suspicious?
The SCSA is a body that is questioning this, quite legitimately, and has the fans of our club at its heart. The same cannot be said of the `Trust at this moment in time.
Call for a revote and let's settle this once and for all. What's to be afraid of? |
That third paragraph, or specifically the last bit. Just, simply wrong, and does you no favours. Disagree, fine, but the rest is cheap and I expected better from your group.
At least Monny gets what I'm saying. I always did like him. I'm trying to outline a path here. Read what I actually wrote, please, it's actually in this very thread ... | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:35 - Dec 18 with 1961 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:28 - Dec 18 by Uxbridge |
That third paragraph, or specifically the last bit. Just, simply wrong, and does you no favours. Disagree, fine, but the rest is cheap and I expected better from your group.
At least Monny gets what I'm saying. I always did like him. I'm trying to outline a path here. Read what I actually wrote, please, it's actually in this very thread ... |
<<That third paragraph, or specifically the last bit. Just, simply wrong, and does you no favours. Disagree, fine, but the rest is cheap and I expected better from your group.>>
Don't go down that route Ux, what people say on here, including me doesn't echo the whole "group". We have a right to be worried though, the revote has to happen. | | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:35 - Dec 18 with 1961 views | chad |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:28 - Dec 18 by Uxbridge |
That third paragraph, or specifically the last bit. Just, simply wrong, and does you no favours. Disagree, fine, but the rest is cheap and I expected better from your group.
At least Monny gets what I'm saying. I always did like him. I'm trying to outline a path here. Read what I actually wrote, please, it's actually in this very thread ... |
I like monny too - especially his comment that
it is obvious that the Trust would rather have sex with a bacon slicer than take legal action
covers it all for me
but I can see why you like him too | | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:42 - Dec 18 with 1940 views | union_jack |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:28 - Dec 18 by Uxbridge |
That third paragraph, or specifically the last bit. Just, simply wrong, and does you no favours. Disagree, fine, but the rest is cheap and I expected better from your group.
At least Monny gets what I'm saying. I always did like him. I'm trying to outline a path here. Read what I actually wrote, please, it's actually in this very thread ... |
Well let's say it's the impression you and the Trust are giving. And yes, to echo Risca, it is my personal belief that undoubtedly are shared by other individuals.
I will reiterate though, the SCSA is there for the good of the club whether you believe it or not. | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 10:43 - Dec 18 with 1940 views | ATFV |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:47 - Dec 17 by Uxbridge |
Oh and one final thing from me, I've seen no evidence to think that anyone on the Trust board is trying to fast track this deal. Theories that this'll be done in the next few days are way off the mark. That is all. |
No they are not. Ron Knuszka was petulantly trumpeting that the rubber stamping of the deal bybthe Anericans would come me through in the next few days. Chair and SD said this deal really had to be concluded as quickly as possible from here.
It’s those comments - and the complete ignoring of concerns and indeed lofty, “how dare you question what we are doing, you peasant” attitude from Board Members - that lead to theories it will be done in days.
Of course, that blindly ignores the continuing modus operandi of the Americans, which is to a lay games, move the goal posts, sneak in unpalatable clauses and generally mess people around - which may actually now work in our favour for once! |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
