| Trust meeting tonight 20:37 - Feb 17 with 7240 views | KeithHaynes |
Plenty of opinions from those who have never done anything.
Makes me laugh.
A lot.
Criticising from a position of after the event.
When at the end of the day they did nothing in the first place.
Mind you half of those that did ...
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Trust meeting tonight on 16:09 - Feb 24 with 774 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 07:03 - Feb 24 by Chief |
- You're lying and or making stuff up again.
- I was understanding that commercially sensitive information relating to the funding of the case could not be announced publically.
- I was happy for them to prepare and fulfill for the mandate they had - court. They did not do that.
- the process changed when they started negotiating again and were considering not going to court - at which point every member would have wanted to be involved. But we were all kept in the dark whether we wanted to be or not - being told in every trust update (and in replies when directly contacting them) that preparations for court were ongoing. |
The king of making stuff up is you.
You told me (and the forum) the Trust were in the final process of going to court.
WRONG You were completely wrong. That is what they told you and that is what you told the forum.
You told us they had a strong case.
WRONG. Not strong enough to get funding.
You told us £21m would be the likely result
WRONG. The funding cost were huge and were not payable by anyone else.
You told me that the Trust is if they lost could simply carry on as normal and go for 'Burnley'.
WRONG.All the Trust's funds would have been at risk plus more.
You have been misled as a Trust member and should apologise to the forum for spreading fake news.
Remember the vast majority of readers on here are not members. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 16:42 - Feb 24 with 746 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 16:09 - Feb 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The king of making stuff up is you.
You told me (and the forum) the Trust were in the final process of going to court.
WRONG You were completely wrong. That is what they told you and that is what you told the forum.
You told us they had a strong case.
WRONG. Not strong enough to get funding.
You told us £21m would be the likely result
WRONG. The funding cost were huge and were not payable by anyone else.
You told me that the Trust is if they lost could simply carry on as normal and go for 'Burnley'.
WRONG.All the Trust's funds would have been at risk plus more.
You have been misled as a Trust member and should apologise to the forum for spreading fake news.
Remember the vast majority of readers on here are not members. |
- what have I made up?
- the trust were in the final processes of going to court. This isn't made up.
- a QC stated the trust had a strong case. This isn't made up.
- £21million sale of the trust's shares was a likely result of court. This isn't made up.
- the trust say they had a draft funding agreement, so where did you get your information saying the case wasn't strong enough to get any?
- how 'huge' were the funders costs then? Where did you get this information from?
- don't know where to start with your Burnley point. By your logic in a few years you've made out the trust's shares would be worth loads. Therefore in theory that would offset and more any losses from the case. This isn't made up. Well not by me anyway, by you perhaps.
- I gave my opinions based on information I was given by the trust. This isn't made up.
Now if you wish to clarify the bits you've made up, feel free.
I do agree the trust should apologise.
You seem to be confused about what constitutes making something up and something taking a different course. [Post edited 24 Feb 2022 16:46]
|  |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 17:31 - Feb 24 with 707 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 23:52 - Feb 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You were happy to let them get on with it and get the best deal, and they did. You did not want to be involved in the process so cannot really complain. |
And just for context seeing as you're accusing others of fabricating and misleading:
"You were happy to let them get on with it and get the best deal". This is a lie.
"You did not want to be involved in the process so cannot really complain."
This is a lie.
So that's two sentences in your post. Both complete lies. 2 from 2, 100% lie conversion rate. And you've got the temerity to accuse others of lying. Chwarae teg ffermwr. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:48 - Feb 24 with 673 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 17:31 - Feb 24 by Chief |
And just for context seeing as you're accusing others of fabricating and misleading:
"You were happy to let them get on with it and get the best deal". This is a lie.
"You did not want to be involved in the process so cannot really complain."
This is a lie.
So that's two sentences in your post. Both complete lies. 2 from 2, 100% lie conversion rate. And you've got the temerity to accuse others of lying. Chwarae teg ffermwr. |
I have asked for full disclosure of the Trust proposals for over a year after hearing they were closing on an agreement to go to court. I suspected the costs were getting higher month on month. I also pointed out how this might practically affect the club. I recommended these proposals to go to the membership for "confirmation" or refusal.
You refused the option of going back to the membership stating the process had already gone on too long. You got you wish the membership were not consulted.
You rejected the Trust going back to the members on this matter but are now complaining about non consultation. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 19:28 - Feb 24 with 644 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:48 - Feb 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I have asked for full disclosure of the Trust proposals for over a year after hearing they were closing on an agreement to go to court. I suspected the costs were getting higher month on month. I also pointed out how this might practically affect the club. I recommended these proposals to go to the membership for "confirmation" or refusal.
You refused the option of going back to the membership stating the process had already gone on too long. You got you wish the membership were not consulted.
You rejected the Trust going back to the members on this matter but are now complaining about non consultation. |
- right so you agree that the trust board should have consulted with the members before signing anything then.
- yes there was no need to go for another vote, but another vote would have been preferable to what they did.
- As above and has been shown by the response of the members since the announcement, another vote would probably have resulted in the same outcome. But I would have welcomed another vote instead of them going against the mandate they had and signing the deal. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 23:06 - Feb 24 with 599 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 19:28 - Feb 24 by Chief |
- right so you agree that the trust board should have consulted with the members before signing anything then.
- yes there was no need to go for another vote, but another vote would have been preferable to what they did.
- As above and has been shown by the response of the members since the announcement, another vote would probably have resulted in the same outcome. But I would have welcomed another vote instead of them going against the mandate they had and signing the deal. |
The Trust had the problem that their predecessors had set in a plan that could not work. The plan would primarily enrich third party English financial services businesses and legal firms at the expense of the club. I explained how.
I explained this to you repeatably but you sadly could not digest the issues and stuck to a fake narrative of getting £21m and leaving the "sellout" with big debts to pay and no issues for the club. Pure fantasy.
The Trust could not afford legal action and funders presumably wanted more and more including insurance against a court defeat. 'No win no fee' in my opinion was not on the table judging by the Chairman's comments. This is no great surprise. The Trusts legal advisor might have rated it 30:70 but the funder might have seen it as 50:50 or less.
In order to protect the Trust and proceed with the case I believe a significant contribution from the members would have been required but this option was not taken seriously. The members embarked on a plan they could not fund either themselves or get other people to fund with reasonable costs. It looked unlikely from day 1. The previous management failed to take the necessary decisions.
The members (like you) have no one to blame but themselves. The members were prepared to harm the club and the owners of the club to take perhaps half what they were due in 2016 and deserve no respect. They were hoping for a 'no win no fee' option. Once thls option was gone the legal option was finished. This occurred some time ago I suspect. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 23:42 - Feb 24 with 590 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 23:06 - Feb 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust had the problem that their predecessors had set in a plan that could not work. The plan would primarily enrich third party English financial services businesses and legal firms at the expense of the club. I explained how.
I explained this to you repeatably but you sadly could not digest the issues and stuck to a fake narrative of getting £21m and leaving the "sellout" with big debts to pay and no issues for the club. Pure fantasy.
The Trust could not afford legal action and funders presumably wanted more and more including insurance against a court defeat. 'No win no fee' in my opinion was not on the table judging by the Chairman's comments. This is no great surprise. The Trusts legal advisor might have rated it 30:70 but the funder might have seen it as 50:50 or less.
In order to protect the Trust and proceed with the case I believe a significant contribution from the members would have been required but this option was not taken seriously. The members embarked on a plan they could not fund either themselves or get other people to fund with reasonable costs. It looked unlikely from day 1. The previous management failed to take the necessary decisions.
The members (like you) have no one to blame but themselves. The members were prepared to harm the club and the owners of the club to take perhaps half what they were due in 2016 and deserve no respect. They were hoping for a 'no win no fee' option. Once thls option was gone the legal option was finished. This occurred some time ago I suspect. |
- Well it could have worked had the current board had the bottle see through the members wishes. The trust's problems really stem from being cruelly excluded from the sale that the other shareholders enriched themselves with. The club weren't being taken to court so you're lying again. What nationality were the defendants lawyers?
- QC advised a likely win in court for the trust would result in them selling their shares to the amount of £21mill. No fake narrative there. Unlike you I prefixed by always saying a potential £21mill whereas you were somehow certain they would receive no where near that figures which changed on a daily basis. Figures you were making up. Leaving the 'sellout' with big debts? You need to explain that point more if you want people to understand what you're trying to say.
- the trust could afford legal action. They've confirmed they could. And they had a funding agreement drafted. Why would a funder not take direction off a legal professional? If they'd thought it was so that low a chance based on the numbers you've made up there it would have been s complete non starter for funder and trust and it would have been panned ages ago.
- It wasn't put on the table for any members to take seriously. All decisions and consultations were taken out of the members hands by them signing this deal and not consulting. Previous boards on legal advice endorsed by the members took the viable yet slightly risky course of actually you mean. As I say, they had s funding agreement, they choose not to go through with it. The previous board acted on the wishes of the members. This one didn't.
- The owners and sellouts willingly and knowingly harmed the trust in the first place and actions should have reactions and consequences. And if the Americans would have decided to disadvantage the club they own and ruin their investment further that's their fault and stupidity and no one else's. They should have done their due diligence and bought the club properly or budgeted for the day when they would have been forced to buy the shares. According to you they bid for the trust's shares at a higher price than what the sellouts got anyway a few years ago so the money's there. Makes a mockery of your nonsense about it affecting the club. The club has got relegated and the shares worth half of what they were by the ownerships poor decisions so again they've got no one to blame but themselves.
- Do you know they were hoping for no win no fee or are you making that up? Do you know if that option was unavailable or are you making that up? | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 17:46 - Feb 25 with 529 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 23:42 - Feb 24 by Chief |
- Well it could have worked had the current board had the bottle see through the members wishes. The trust's problems really stem from being cruelly excluded from the sale that the other shareholders enriched themselves with. The club weren't being taken to court so you're lying again. What nationality were the defendants lawyers?
- QC advised a likely win in court for the trust would result in them selling their shares to the amount of £21mill. No fake narrative there. Unlike you I prefixed by always saying a potential £21mill whereas you were somehow certain they would receive no where near that figures which changed on a daily basis. Figures you were making up. Leaving the 'sellout' with big debts? You need to explain that point more if you want people to understand what you're trying to say.
- the trust could afford legal action. They've confirmed they could. And they had a funding agreement drafted. Why would a funder not take direction off a legal professional? If they'd thought it was so that low a chance based on the numbers you've made up there it would have been s complete non starter for funder and trust and it would have been panned ages ago.
- It wasn't put on the table for any members to take seriously. All decisions and consultations were taken out of the members hands by them signing this deal and not consulting. Previous boards on legal advice endorsed by the members took the viable yet slightly risky course of actually you mean. As I say, they had s funding agreement, they choose not to go through with it. The previous board acted on the wishes of the members. This one didn't.
- The owners and sellouts willingly and knowingly harmed the trust in the first place and actions should have reactions and consequences. And if the Americans would have decided to disadvantage the club they own and ruin their investment further that's their fault and stupidity and no one else's. They should have done their due diligence and bought the club properly or budgeted for the day when they would have been forced to buy the shares. According to you they bid for the trust's shares at a higher price than what the sellouts got anyway a few years ago so the money's there. Makes a mockery of your nonsense about it affecting the club. The club has got relegated and the shares worth half of what they were by the ownerships poor decisions so again they've got no one to blame but themselves.
- Do you know they were hoping for no win no fee or are you making that up? Do you know if that option was unavailable or are you making that up? |
You need to read the Trust Chairman's statement of this week to understand why they could not go ahead. There is a good chance you will not understand it and keep banging away with you pre- conceived ideas which do not stand up to scrutiny.
The proof of the case is in the pudding. What ever argument you put forward make no difference as the case did not make sense.
Members voted for this action on the basis of it being 'no win no fee'. This was not the case. You regularly stated the consequence of a loss were small. This is false The funders wanted access to the Trust cash funds and shares if the case extended beyond a fixed budget to an unlimited level.
The costs of winning were also onerous. I suggested a minimum £7m. It was in fact worse that this with the Chairman stating the would recover less than half of the £21m with £10m plus costs.
The new board got stuck into the details and did not like what they saw. Your promotion of the legal action has failed and it have been established it was bad for the club the Trust the city and Wales.
Members were sold a pup. Legal action is always complicated and costly. This was too complicated and too costly to proceed. The members are to blame. They should have been shrewd enough not to fall for it. [Post edited 25 Feb 2022 17:49]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:56 - Feb 25 with 504 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 17:46 - Feb 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You need to read the Trust Chairman's statement of this week to understand why they could not go ahead. There is a good chance you will not understand it and keep banging away with you pre- conceived ideas which do not stand up to scrutiny.
The proof of the case is in the pudding. What ever argument you put forward make no difference as the case did not make sense.
Members voted for this action on the basis of it being 'no win no fee'. This was not the case. You regularly stated the consequence of a loss were small. This is false The funders wanted access to the Trust cash funds and shares if the case extended beyond a fixed budget to an unlimited level.
The costs of winning were also onerous. I suggested a minimum £7m. It was in fact worse that this with the Chairman stating the would recover less than half of the £21m with £10m plus costs.
The new board got stuck into the details and did not like what they saw. Your promotion of the legal action has failed and it have been established it was bad for the club the Trust the city and Wales.
Members were sold a pup. Legal action is always complicated and costly. This was too complicated and too costly to proceed. The members are to blame. They should have been shrewd enough not to fall for it. [Post edited 25 Feb 2022 17:49]
|
- I have read it. What's not to understand? He didn't say it couldn't go ahead. They chose for it to not go ahead. You're never capable of scrutinizing what I post, you just ignore and type randomness.
- it was the decision of a few people (who were clearly not for action from the start of tenure) against the wishes of many more members. That's not proof. But yes whatever arguement is made is completely irrelevant now.
- well if the basis of the no win no fee was changed at any point, it should have been conveyed to the membership. I never stated the consequences were small at all. I used your own logic of an inevitable Burnley sale against you.
- Come on now Resloven, you're dreary estimates were far worse than 14mill trust fund. As it stands £10million in the trust's accounts wouldn't be bad now. And what's been forgotten by everyone is the sellouts. In the widely accepted scenario that in the event of a trust win the Americans would buy their £21mill shares. Meaning the sellouts get off scot free? I doubt it. They've just paid an out of court settlement which backs this up.
- no they didn't like what they saw and my defence of going to court hasn't been disproven at all or proven to be bad. It's impossible for that happen now. None of this changes the QC endorsed strong case.
- The members weren't sold a pup. They voted in good faith with the information provided to them. The only people to blame for this are the sellouts& Americans who I believe had no intention of actually fighting the case, but just stringing it out until the trust funds ran out.
- there's no point going on about for any longer because it's bloody depressing. With some of the trust boards answers (there's been a lot information provided) I can now understand why they did what they did. This to me still doesn't excuse them for not going back to the members. But I bet that was down the Americans / sellouts NDAs etc.
- ultimately we know there was guilt, they know there was guilt, it's sad indictment on society that justice can be evaded because one party has more money than another.
And that's what the whole thing boils down to. The trust board aren't the real villains in this. [Post edited 25 Feb 2022 19:03]
| |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 19:26 - Feb 25 with 489 views | Badlands |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:56 - Feb 25 by Chief |
- I have read it. What's not to understand? He didn't say it couldn't go ahead. They chose for it to not go ahead. You're never capable of scrutinizing what I post, you just ignore and type randomness.
- it was the decision of a few people (who were clearly not for action from the start of tenure) against the wishes of many more members. That's not proof. But yes whatever arguement is made is completely irrelevant now.
- well if the basis of the no win no fee was changed at any point, it should have been conveyed to the membership. I never stated the consequences were small at all. I used your own logic of an inevitable Burnley sale against you.
- Come on now Resloven, you're dreary estimates were far worse than 14mill trust fund. As it stands £10million in the trust's accounts wouldn't be bad now. And what's been forgotten by everyone is the sellouts. In the widely accepted scenario that in the event of a trust win the Americans would buy their £21mill shares. Meaning the sellouts get off scot free? I doubt it. They've just paid an out of court settlement which backs this up.
- no they didn't like what they saw and my defence of going to court hasn't been disproven at all or proven to be bad. It's impossible for that happen now. None of this changes the QC endorsed strong case.
- The members weren't sold a pup. They voted in good faith with the information provided to them. The only people to blame for this are the sellouts& Americans who I believe had no intention of actually fighting the case, but just stringing it out until the trust funds ran out.
- there's no point going on about for any longer because it's bloody depressing. With some of the trust boards answers (there's been a lot information provided) I can now understand why they did what they did. This to me still doesn't excuse them for not going back to the members. But I bet that was down the Americans / sellouts NDAs etc.
- ultimately we know there was guilt, they know there was guilt, it's sad indictment on society that justice can be evaded because one party has more money than another.
And that's what the whole thing boils down to. The trust board aren't the real villains in this. [Post edited 25 Feb 2022 19:03]
|
Serious question
' it was the decision of a few people (who were clearly not for action from the start of tenure) against the wishes of many more members. That's not proof. But yes whatever arguement is made is completely irrelevant now. '
Why were they were elected and re-elected if they, 'clearly not for action from the start', surely there has been only one issue within the trust since the sale of shares. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 19:42 - Feb 25 with 476 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 19:26 - Feb 25 by Badlands |
Serious question
' it was the decision of a few people (who were clearly not for action from the start of tenure) against the wishes of many more members. That's not proof. But yes whatever arguement is made is completely irrelevant now. '
Why were they were elected and re-elected if they, 'clearly not for action from the start', surely there has been only one issue within the trust since the sale of shares. |
Because they didn't publically announce they weren't for it. All the statements were that action was progressing. I think they've only had one election in office. And the Americans I believe contacted them straight very early in. This is suspicious to me. The previous board didn't have an approach.
However, a few months ago the updates became more vague and sparse and this ties up with the news that they've been negotiating for months. Also the words of the likes of Clement and Godden who were closer to it than most, say in hindsight, it explains why an advisory sub group made up of ex board members was sidelined. [Post edited 25 Feb 2022 19:44]
| |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 00:27 - Feb 26 with 418 views | BillyChong |
| Trust meeting tonight on 19:42 - Feb 25 by Chief |
Because they didn't publically announce they weren't for it. All the statements were that action was progressing. I think they've only had one election in office. And the Americans I believe contacted them straight very early in. This is suspicious to me. The previous board didn't have an approach.
However, a few months ago the updates became more vague and sparse and this ties up with the news that they've been negotiating for months. Also the words of the likes of Clement and Godden who were closer to it than most, say in hindsight, it explains why an advisory sub group made up of ex board members was sidelined. [Post edited 25 Feb 2022 19:44]
|
Exactly. Badlands needs to look at Rupert’s application for example where he stated he was all for legal action. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
