| Trust Statement 20:42 - Apr 11 with 39138 views | monmouth |
Good!!! | |
| |  |
| Trust Statement on 09:48 - Apr 12 with 2302 views | tylagarwjack |
Agreed it does, as I said in an earlier post, the fact that the Americans had seen the agreement can't have helped the working relationship between them and the trust. Obviously the trust then tried to put that fact behind them to try and build a working relationship with the Americans, which will again have taken a knock following the trust's correction of a lie told by the Americans to the fans present at the forum.
There is also the issue of the breach itself, and whether the trust are going to take legal action against a clear breach of company law, I presume there is still no definitive decision on that? | | | |
| Trust Statement on 10:29 - Apr 12 with 2245 views | Nookiejack |
The Yank's seem to have got themselves in a mess by not getting their facts straight at the Forum Quoting Commencement of discussions with Trust in March 16 v when they began in April-17.
Also they appear to have been sent a copy of the shareholders agreement before the 21st July sale -regardless of when the warranties were signed.
So this means they were aware of the Shareholders Agreement prior to their purchase of the shares - if indeed sent a copy before 21st July-16 by the Trust. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 10:29 - Apr 12 with 2245 views | Uxbridge |
Appreciate that, and in this example at least I have the advantage of being privy to the timelines and discussions.
True, never a good time, but now would be disruptive on the pitch without a doubt. Six weekends doesn't change much especially as discussions continue with the QC and such an action would need the canvassed backing of the members anyway which would take time . Plus there's the question of what could be gained via legal action that couldn't through dialogue, once a firm understanding of the legal position is known . For me, waiting till the end of the season in the circumstances makes sense. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 10:35 - Apr 12 with 2236 views | Nookiejack |
The other thing is prior to the Trust establishing that the selling shareholders had given the Yanks a warranty that no Shareholders Agreement existed - why would the Trust have provided confidential information to the Yanks such as a shareholders agreement?
Martin Morgan and Katzen were recommending Chinese consortium - should the Trust have provided the Shareholders Agreement to the Chinese consortium as well? | | | |
| Trust Statement on 11:13 - Apr 12 with 2181 views | Nookiejack |
Or maybe the Trust asked to conduct due diligence on the new owners.
Surely the Trust would have to ask who are the Ultimate Be eficial Owners behind their consortium?
The selling shareholders appeared to not have cared.
We still don't know who stands behind Swansea Football LLC, established in Delaware, in the US.
Jason and Steve saud at the Forum they mostly own this entity but if they have lied about the Shareholders Agreement - how can you now believe them on anything they have said? | | | |
| Trust Statement on 11:22 - Apr 12 with 2166 views | Bloodyhills |
The yanks and the sellers are lying b@stards. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 11:48 - Apr 12 with 2122 views | londonlisa2001 |
Re the shareholders agreement - the Trust stated that they started to speak with the Americans in April.
I can quite easily imagine that sometime after that and well before the completion of the deal, a lawyer for the Trust mentioned it in a meeting, the American's lawyer asked what they were talking about as they thought there was no agreement, and the Trust then sending it to them.
What is more strange, is that the SPA was later signed by all parties, when both parties at that stage, knew it to include a warranty that was false. The warranties will have presumably been drafted by the buyers (as the sellers keep warranties to a minimum, so wouldn't volunteer info to include if the buyers never mentioned it). So the Americans drafted it, to include a warranty that there was no shareholders agreement, the sellers accepted it in draft, the buyers then found out it was untrue, but presumably didn't tell the sellers that they knew it to be untrue and allowed them to sign it in the final document.
That is interesting. I wonder what indemnities were included. I also wonder as to the timing of all this coming out as it looks ever more likely that we'll be relegated.
I agree with the point about why this wasn't raised at the meeting. Doesn't make sense to me that the Trust stood there and allowed them to lie. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 12:05 - Apr 12 with 2088 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
Perhaps the trust wanted to show everyone what we are dealing with here.
Liars aren't to be trusted . | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 12:20 - Apr 12 with 1994 views | Nookiejack |
That's terrific analysis Londonlisa.
Looks like there is going to be more legal action between the Yanks and selling shareholders than between the Trust and Selling Shareholders/Trust.
Yes incredibly strange why the Yanks would allow the selling shareholders to sign the warranty stating there was no shareholders agreement - when they had been sent it by the Trust. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 12:27 - Apr 12 with 1975 views | morningstar |
Agreed, i don't think a 'Fans forum' is the correct time or place for the trust to play out a public spat with the Yanks. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 12:28 - Apr 12 with 1974 views | Nookiejack |
Typo Correction
Looks like there is going to be considerably more legal action between;
1. the Yanks and Selling shareholders; than between
2. the Trust and Selling Shareholders/Yanks | | | |
| Trust Statement on 12:31 - Apr 12 with 1967 views | Bloodyhills |
I wouldn't be surprised if they have squirrelled their money away on an offshore account or similar so that in the event of going to court and losing can still hang onto their duplicitly gained dosh. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 12:39 - Apr 12 with 1953 views | Shaky |
"What is more strange, is that the SPA was later signed by all parties, when both parties at that stage, knew it to include a warranty that was false."
I disagree.
As I said at the weekend, I have no doubt whatsoever that a document exists titled shareholders' agreement, and that the Trust in good faith believed it to be valid.
However, you could imagine various factors that mean the document is not legally binding. If that were the case, the representation would in fact have been satisfied, because the SHAG wouldn't exist in a meaningful legal sense.
No point in getting into endless hypotheticals, but just to give one example there is often a clause saying that the parties will cause the articles of the company to be amended to take effect to the provisions of the agreement.
Clearly that did not subsequently happen, but if such a clause were present it might mean the agreement is then invalidated depending on the wording.
That's speculation, but what is certain is the the Trust seems to says it has twice sought a legal opinion on whether the agreement is binding. By definition that means there is some dispute or doubt about it, why else bother? [Post edited 12 Apr 2017 12:43]
| |
| |
| Trust Statement on 12:43 - Apr 12 with 1922 views | vetchonian |
so then why ask the Trust so sign a waiver if this SHA had these factors which are not legally binding? | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 12:44 - Apr 12 with 1912 views | Shaky |
To try to cover themselves, of course! | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 12:48 - Apr 12 with 1902 views | vetchonian |
so you are blowing your own arguement out of the water?
If The Yanks representatives believed the SH they had seen was not watertight so then advising them to sign why get the sellers to ask for a waiver? | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 12:49 - Apr 12 with 1894 views | Shaky |
To cover themselves - or more accurately their clients - of course!
It's what lawyers do. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 13:11 - Apr 12 with 1856 views | Bloodyhills |
One possibility is that they might want to seek legal advice first. It being possible that it's better to leave any wrangling until it gets to court rather than play out any arguments in public where it might adversely affect the court case, should it come to that. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 13:19 - Apr 12 with 1829 views | Shaky |
Well, that is certainly a point of view.
But i am sorry to have to point out that you (the Trust) have repeatedly said you would put this to members once a definitive opinion from the QC was in hand.
By delaying now, you're going back on your word, and as I see it that is not a good signal to be sending out -- **to anybody**. [Post edited 12 Apr 2017 13:21]
| |
| |
| Trust Statement on 13:28 - Apr 12 with 1810 views | fbreath |
Was the forum recorded?
I know one of the newspapers was running a live update on proceedings did they mention it anywhere. Good evidence that they actually said these things at the forum | |
| We are the first Welsh club to reach the Premier League Simples |
| |
| Trust Statement on 13:30 - Apr 12 with 1803 views | QJumpingJack |
If the Americans cannot manage their diary properly, what hope do we have of them keeping us in the EPL.... | | | |
| Trust Statement on 13:35 - Apr 12 with 1786 views | fbreath |
I wonder if the Americans, Huw, Dineen etc. will be at the player awards do this year | |
| We are the first Welsh club to reach the Premier League Simples |
| |
| Trust Statement on 13:36 - Apr 12 with 1778 views | QJumpingJack |
POTY Awards - it could be the longest three hours Kev Johns has ever faced.... | | | |
| Trust Statement on 14:25 - Apr 12 with 1708 views | tomdickharry |
Plus there's the question of what could be gained via legal action that couldn't through dialogue.
Answer - The truth. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 14:58 - Apr 12 with 1673 views | giantstoneater |
A Tank that would destroy both the old board and the new one for being the lying so and so 's that they are - that's what I meant!! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
