| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 01:16 - Jan 1 with 3016 views | Witneyjack |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 00:42 - Jan 1 by chad |
freeserve? |
BT |  | |  |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 06:06 - Jan 1 with 2947 views | LeonWasGod |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:19 - Dec 31 by A_Fans_Dad |
My son say's that ITV wales has a big piece on the Trust Statement with an Interview as well.
It is getting out there. [Post edited 31 Dec 2017 20:09]
|
Good, it needs to. Unfortunately HJ caught the Trust napping again, not for the first time. The response is great but HJ got that interview in first and people will be believing his account of events that was broadcast to a wider audience.
The Trust needs to work hard now to get this reply out there, although they're playing catch up and damage may have already been done.
Imo, the Trust should be much more proactive. It always seems to be outsmarted and then has to cobble together a statement or rebuttal, which people may or may not pay any attention to.
So I ask this of the Trust - take the initiative for once. Go on a campaign to get the facts out there via different media, including interviews. In light of recent developments (resignations, questions over eligibility of board constitution/vote, this most recent deception by HJ), reconsider the position of the vote. I would vote differently in a re-run for sure.
HJ shows again how little respect he and the other shareholders have for the Trust. Those of you in the restructured Trust board surely must wake up now. I don't know what you personally expect to get from the club, or what special relationship you thought you had, surely now you must see that HJ is playing you for fools.
Time to believe in the advice of your Council and make these snakes accountable for their wrong doings. |  | | |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:09 - Jan 1 with 2858 views | Private_Partz |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:56 - Dec 31 by monmouth |
Plus the refusal to continue hypothecation of the Trust subs into the ST price (hence the club subsidising and supporting fan involvement). Quite ironic as he got a gong on the back of a fan owned model. Maybe the SCSA can get Liz to give him a call. |
This has been long forgotten about and a very early pointer to the Jenkins mindset and his future actions. |  |
| You have mission in life to hold out your hand,
To help the other guy out,
Help your fellow man.
Stan Ridgway
|
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 11:59 - Jan 1 with 2776 views | PentyrchJack |
Thank you Supporter's Trust. That is very comprehensive, well evidenced and factual.
Having read this, there is a question about whether the Shareholders Agreement was broken and should the Trust refer the matter to the Premier League? |  |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 15:17 - Jan 1 with 2696 views | Shaky |
I am not gong to get into this in any detail, but this statement is factually incorrect,
"Immediately before the 2016 deal was completed, the Articles of Association of the football club were changed. These were changed during a meeting, chaired by Huw Jenkins, of the club’s board held on 21 July 2016."
It was the articles of the holidng company 2002 Ltd that were changed.
The articles of the company that ows the club itself were bit changed until a few months agai.
Very sloppy, [Post edited 1 Jan 2018 15:34]
|  |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 15:22 - Jan 1 with 2691 views | Shaky |
. . .and the rest of this is bordering on bollocks: Certainly it is highly misleading,
"These changes had a significantly detrimental impact on the position of minority shareholders such as the Trust. The Trust has previously commented that we were not informed of these changes prior to them being filed at Companies House nor were our representatives a part of this board meeting. Given that the transfer of shares to complete the sale were also approved during this board meeting, we can only assume that we were deliberately excluded. "
Fact is the Trust had no representative on the board of the holding company, where these corporate actions appeaar to have been made entirely legitimately.
Why had the Trust not demanded a board seat years earlier on the holding company 2002 limited.
This is a question that really needs to be answered in the interests of trying to understand what the fcuk was going on. [Post edited 1 Jan 2018 15:41]
| |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 15:33 - Jan 1 with 2661 views | Shaky |
I simply haven't the energy to consider this stuff properly today, but I will say this; those who think the Trust have pulled out some sort of slam dunk with this statement are mistaken. For me It only raises new questions.
That said the original litigation strategy I put together remains sound as far as I can see, so as long as the Trust are going in that direction everything should be fine.
However, stay on piste, FFS. Consider the possibility that Jenkins et all are setting fires all over the place to draw the Trust into skirmishes, where they can not afford to make schoolboy mistakes like I have just outlined. [Post edited 1 Jan 2018 15:42]
| |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 07:24 - Jan 2 with 2501 views | Shaky |
So I have read the various statemets and have nothing much to add to what I said yesterday.
Bottom line is it looks like the other shareholders are clearly rattleled.
Good. The Trust should now formally reverse its position on the deal and move ahead with litigation. Can they now walk the walk? Need to pull your socks up a little, boys and girls, and pick your fights. [Post edited 2 Jan 2018 7:35]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 09:18 - Jan 2 with 2410 views | Yossarian |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 07:24 - Jan 2 by Shaky |
So I have read the various statemets and have nothing much to add to what I said yesterday.
Bottom line is it looks like the other shareholders are clearly rattleled.
Good. The Trust should now formally reverse its position on the deal and move ahead with litigation. Can they now walk the walk? Need to pull your socks up a little, boys and girls, and pick your fights. [Post edited 2 Jan 2018 7:35]
|
Fair play Shaky. I think you’ve done everyone a service in highlighting these issues. I have definately changed my position, having voted for the sale I would now reverse this. I think the Trust should call an EGM and formally re-ballot the decision.
I would also call on the Trust and Alliance to lobby the Council to halt negotiations on the sale of the lease for the stadium. If the Council do not pull out, they risk the approbation of the public of Swansea and it would mean that I would have doubts about ever voting for a Labour Council aever again.
Another suggestion that I think has great merit is for representatives of the Trust/Alliance to forge some relationships with teams owned by the Kaplan/ Levien consortium and go for the National publicity that joint campaigns against the owners would generate. Embarrassing the Welsh media and Premier League would be a bonus. |  |
| "Yossarian- the very sight of the name made him shudder.There were so many esses in it. It just had to be subversive" (Catch 22) |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 09:31 - Jan 2 with 2377 views | longlostjack |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 09:18 - Jan 2 by Yossarian |
Fair play Shaky. I think you’ve done everyone a service in highlighting these issues. I have definately changed my position, having voted for the sale I would now reverse this. I think the Trust should call an EGM and formally re-ballot the decision.
I would also call on the Trust and Alliance to lobby the Council to halt negotiations on the sale of the lease for the stadium. If the Council do not pull out, they risk the approbation of the public of Swansea and it would mean that I would have doubts about ever voting for a Labour Council aever again.
Another suggestion that I think has great merit is for representatives of the Trust/Alliance to forge some relationships with teams owned by the Kaplan/ Levien consortium and go for the National publicity that joint campaigns against the owners would generate. Embarrassing the Welsh media and Premier League would be a bonus. |
Good post. |  |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 11:09 - Jan 2 with 2307 views | Shaky |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 09:18 - Jan 2 by Yossarian |
Fair play Shaky. I think you’ve done everyone a service in highlighting these issues. I have definately changed my position, having voted for the sale I would now reverse this. I think the Trust should call an EGM and formally re-ballot the decision.
I would also call on the Trust and Alliance to lobby the Council to halt negotiations on the sale of the lease for the stadium. If the Council do not pull out, they risk the approbation of the public of Swansea and it would mean that I would have doubts about ever voting for a Labour Council aever again.
Another suggestion that I think has great merit is for representatives of the Trust/Alliance to forge some relationships with teams owned by the Kaplan/ Levien consortium and go for the National publicity that joint campaigns against the owners would generate. Embarrassing the Welsh media and Premier League would be a bonus. |
No problem, Yoss. | |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 11:50 - Jan 2 with 2262 views | Swanseaman |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 07:24 - Jan 2 by Shaky |
So I have read the various statemets and have nothing much to add to what I said yesterday.
Bottom line is it looks like the other shareholders are clearly rattleled.
Good. The Trust should now formally reverse its position on the deal and move ahead with litigation. Can they now walk the walk? Need to pull your socks up a little, boys and girls, and pick your fights. [Post edited 2 Jan 2018 7:35]
|
good post Shaky... [Post edited 2 Jan 2018 12:01]
|  |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 12:09 - Jan 2 with 2218 views | Outsider |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 07:24 - Jan 2 by Shaky |
So I have read the various statemets and have nothing much to add to what I said yesterday.
Bottom line is it looks like the other shareholders are clearly rattleled.
Good. The Trust should now formally reverse its position on the deal and move ahead with litigation. Can they now walk the walk? Need to pull your socks up a little, boys and girls, and pick your fights. [Post edited 2 Jan 2018 7:35]
|
This is exactly right. This time Dai Little and the Trust board should recommend litigation to members and proceeed accordingly. This is what the Trust board needs to focus on doing. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
