| Trust Statement 20:42 - Apr 11 with 39137 views | monmouth |
Good!!! | |
| |  |
| Trust Statement on 20:46 - Apr 12 with 2534 views | Loyal |
It's about time they were said in the flesh, Phil never gets these statements said to him in person. | |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Trust Statement on 20:46 - Apr 12 with 2524 views | Darran |
It's called being a shithouse my friend. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 20:57 - Apr 12 with 2496 views | Vetchfielder |
Thanks very much Spratty for pressing this on the night and also for taking the time to type out a verbatim account of that part of the meeting.
 | |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| Trust Statement on 21:14 - Apr 12 with 2458 views | budegan |
Indeed, thank you.
I have 2 questions I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on.
1) Why has this issue come to light now? Why the timing of the press story this week?
2) Does "we don’t see this evening as a look back at what happened at the share sale, we have had those discussions” mean that there's no fight in the Trust leaders? | | | |
| Trust Statement on 21:41 - Apr 12 with 2395 views | Darran |
A mate of mine tells me you were having a lovely laugh and a joke at the end the night anyway Sprout.
Nice guy is he?
That's so sweet. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 21:57 - Apr 12 with 2365 views | TheResurrection |
Sprats, evening old boy and hope you are well...
From your transcript and opinion from the forum it read to me that Phil, and I'm guessing as an extension of him, the Trust, were keen to avoid thorny questions about the takeover.
Why do you think that is?
Phil, Ux? I'm sure people would appreciate your reasons on this? | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 22:07 - Apr 12 with 2336 views | dameedna |
Well done so so the owners er are not sure about the 21 per cent and agreement | | | |
| Trust Statement on 22:12 - Apr 12 with 2318 views | Starsky |
Lying 'investors', cheating sellout shareholders, disgraced fans representative, Mis firing Trust, crazy player recruitment system, under performing players and a manager who can't stop the rot.
Not much of our club left is there? | |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Trust Statement on 22:14 - Apr 12 with 2297 views | Darran |
Clive answered that above mun. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 22:14 - Apr 12 with 2303 views | NeathJack |
I would assume because they want to keep their powder as dry as possible for the assumed battle to come once the season ends?
That's just my assumption though. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 22:16 - Apr 12 with 2281 views | Jackfath |
We've always got each other!
 | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 22:18 - Apr 12 with 2275 views | londonlisa2001 |
Evening old girl, I believe ...
I am also bemused by that though.
I also remain bemused by the Trust reps not correcting them on the night. I appreciate the opinions on here expressed by some that it was better to avoid a 'difficulty' on the night, but it appears they had free ride that they frankly don't deserve. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 22:19 - Apr 12 with 2264 views | TheResurrection |
So why have a forum in the first place where fans are bound to want answers? | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 22:21 - Apr 12 with 2251 views | NeathJack |
No idea tbh. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 22:28 - Apr 12 with 2215 views | TheResurrection |
Old girl?? Never?!!
I should have listened to the audio but i'm sure she'll not thank you for saying that!! | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 22:31 - Apr 12 with 2203 views | londonlisa2001 |
Lol. Funnily enough I thought that as I typed it, but you know what I meant  | | | |
| Trust Statement on 22:33 - Apr 12 with 2183 views | Darran |
You haven't listened to the audio?
Baffling. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 22:34 - Apr 12 with 2185 views | londonlisa2001 |
I suspect that when it was arranged, we didn't look like we'd be completely in the mess that we're in, and the expectation was that fans would want to ask about plans for next season, stadium expansion, naming rights, etc etc.
The more it looks like we're going down, the less anyone is interested in any of that.
That's just a guess though. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 22:42 - Apr 12 with 2157 views | Spratty |
Thanks guys ;)
From my POV I can only guess at the answers to the questions
Timing of this perhaps because the recording of the meeting was not released until later, then taking the time to go through it in detail. Or perhaps a more specific motive although goodness knows why.
As far as what Phil said, I wasn’t very happy because it felt like Phil was protecting the buyers and depriving us the opportunity to question the sellers on these important issues. I was glad these questions were still asked.
However I don’t like to prejudge as it is possible Phil gave the buyers his best assurance about guiding the meeting in order to get them to agree to attend (although strangely it seemed to me Jason wanted to get his version out there, he certainly wasn’t reticent).
Then there is the whole building bridges thing. So there are valid reasons that can be given in relation to attempting to be seen to be constructively moving forward and avoiding difficult questions, but for me that time has come and gone and hard questions need to be asked.
As I had given Jason a bit of a grilling I did go and very briefly shake hands with him after the meeting and say that although I was unhappy with many things, I would like to thank them for coming and him for answering my questions. Then we immediately left the meeting, in fact we were one of the first out of the car park. As Phil was stood right next to Jason perhaps I should have got them together and asked more questions whilst I was on a hot streak. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 23:09 - Apr 12 with 2100 views | QJumpingJack |
Why haven't WalesOnline and BBC Wales picked up on this statement?
The Trust need to be on the front foot in the PR battle. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 23:38 - Apr 12 with 2052 views | NeathJack |
I asked the guy who did the original BBC article the same question in Twitter.
His response.....
All they've done is update the 2-3 day old story with a a couple of lines about the Trust statement.
A complete cop out imho. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 01:39 - Apr 13 with 1951 views | Nookiejack |
Say the Shareholders Agreement did limit any one shareholder from acquiring more than 25% - and then there was a scenario where all shareholders wanted to sell to an acquirer - who would then say hold 51% controlling stake - what would be the mechanism of changing the shareholders agreement to allow the new owner - to now own greater than 25%?
Or alternatively the mechanism for 'ripping' up the old shareholders agreement and replacing it with a new one? To now reflect the company has a controlling shareholder.
The context of my questions are even if the shareholders agreement is very basic - isn't it still binding on the Yanks? They may not like it - as want a more sophisticated version to reflect today's environment - not one 20 years ago.
I assume they have a shareholders agreement between themselves and the selling shareholders who have residual stakes. How does this all work if 2 shareholders agreements are in place? Does one override the other?
So maybe the Shareholders Agreement doesn't have an effect on legal proceedings - but if legally enforceable don't the Yanks still have to abide by it - even though very basic? If it contains a Right of First Refusal does that override the new clauses on this in the New Articles?
I understand your points of :-
1. whether the original shareholders agreement was actually executed / signed? Hence HJ's team might be relying on it not being executed to argue it is invalid. Or something similar.
2. that 25% may have just been a gentleman's agreement and not written down in the Shareholders Agreement. However given no shareholder prior to the sale did own more than 25% - is that akin to demonstrating a legally enforceable 'verbal' agreement?
I have a similar view as Londonlisa on the Mel Nurse share buyback. The share buyback looked like a mechanism to ensure that all shareholders at the time increased their % stakes - in line with their existing pro rata holdings.
Instead of each shareholder at the time having to pay cash for their pro-rata share of Mel Nurse's 5% stake - they agreed and instructed the club to buy back the shares from Mel Nurse and cancel the shares. Hence their stakes all increased in proportion to their existing % holdings.
This on the face of it suggests that either a shareholders agreement was in place or a gentleman's agreement (which the Trust appeared to have honoured in good faith). If not - the Trust could have just bought the 5% outright from Mel Nurse. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 07:52 - Apr 13 with 1832 views | Private_Partz |
Am absolute shocker of a response. It sums up our pathetic media. Had the owners had something on the Trust they would have found space big time. This is a newsworthy issue and opens up a whole can of worms about who is lying. Ripe stuff for an ivestigative journalist....... If they existed in Wales.
SWEP I suspect would not have been much better but this WOL site is going to make matters much worse. | |
| You have mission in life to hold out your hand,
To help the other guy out,
Help your fellow man.
Stan Ridgway
|
| |
| Trust Statement on 08:13 - Apr 13 with 1804 views | QJumpingJack |
It seems there is a bit of PR games going on.
Perhaps the story was given out on Monday night on the agreement that the Trust's response would be ignored? | | | |
| Trust Statement on 08:35 - Apr 13 with 1786 views | Nookiejack |
Re: The Yank's making an offer for 50% of the Trust's shares
When you take a look at Companies House Huw Jenkins and Martin Morgan/Wife have been left with symmetrical 5% stakes. This does not equate to an offer of 50% for their stakes.
One may also speculate that there may be an agreement between them and the Yanks - for the Yanks to acquire the residual stakes at a later date - for example giving the Yank's time to get up to speed in respect of the operational running of the club (which you could argue is what they are doing through Pearlman).
It would also give selling shareholders a full exit in respect of their shares. Which would be difficult in future without an agreement like this.
So when the Yank's made the offer the Trust may have asked
1. Conduct due diligence on new owners
2. Asked for the Yank's to provide full details in respect of the full terms they offered to the selling shareholders. Why shouldn't the Trust have been offered the same terms?
This may be a minor point but given the Trust were not offered the same terms as the selling shareholders - isn't it another small piece of evidence that paints the full picture of unfair prejudice against the Trust? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
