| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 145102 views | Neath_Jack |
Regarding the options open to us.
It's going to cause some massive debate on here i reckon  | |
| |  |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:29 - Jun 30 with 2614 views | SwansNZ |
So it's a postal ballot?
I can't recall receiving anything other than emails from the Trust. I could be wrong. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:31 - Jun 30 with 2608 views | Phil_S |
Yes it has to be because we dont have email addresses for all our members | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:31 - Jun 30 with 2608 views | Uxbridge |
Yes postal. If you don't receive something, contact the Trust and we'll try and resolve something. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:37 - Jun 30 with 2576 views | SwansNZ |
Righto, ta. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:40 - Jun 30 with 2562 views | felixstowe_jack |
About time everybody joined the trust then they will a have a vote and a say on how it is run. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:41 - Jun 30 with 2559 views | Vetchfielder |
First of all I'd like to again thank the Trust board for their efforts and contributions in trying to sort this out on our behalf, and also thanks to Phil and Ux for coming on here to make further points and answering questions afterwards.
I came out of the meeting being generally in favour but felt that we could/should have been given more details regarding the legal action route. I'd suggest that any further information provided to members provide as much detail on the legal route as that provided for accepting the Americans' offer. We need to know all the facts for all the options and the Trust should not be seen as being too favoured towards their recommendation. The estimated legal fees should be provided and I'd also like to have further explanation of something Dai mentioned around a potential "no win/ no fee" and something around "insuring ourselves" or did I mis-hear that?
Anyway, by the time I'd driven home I'd changed my mind about accepting the offer due to the continued Jenkins factor. I'd hoped that whatever happened to bring this debacle to a head would result in HJ being removed from the club because I don't think we can move on until that happens. This offer actually strengthens his continued involvement with the club.
If I was pressed into voting this morning I would vote for legal action but maybe we need a 4th option of accepting the terms but requiring the omission of HJ from the deal and from the club?
As a few have said earlier, this is a difficult one and not clear cut for me. | |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:45 - Jun 30 with 2540 views | Uxbridge |
It's too late to join to be able to vote on this deal. The decision will be made by the current members. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:51 - Jun 30 with 2509 views | DafyddHuw |
Your first paragraph..
should have been preceded by "In my opinion"
If we vote to sue, the Yanks will be bricking it. After all, our QC has said we have a very good case. The Yanks will be bending over backwards to avoid court and if you say that the Yanks won't budge from where thay are now, then you're just showing your naivety. We can get a much better offer than this if we're just hard-nosed about it.
As an aside, the email I received talks a lot about Steve and Jason. Steve and Jason ffs. Are you forgeting that these people were complicit in how the club was bought/sold? How quickly you've got into bed with them leaves a nasty taste for me. Steve and Jason reflects your (not personally) mindset. Kaplan and Levein would reflect a lot less subservient mindset. Just a detail but says a lot. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:53 - Jun 30 with 2501 views | Uxbridge |
Thanks for your kind words. It's appreciated. It's been an experience!
On the Jenkins point, it's worth noting two things here IMO. Firstly, Jenkins currently holds a shareholding of around 5-7% (we don't know the exact numbers) and the Americans are backing him to continue, regardless of anything that will happen. Legal action regarding the Trust shareholding doesn't impact that at all.
Secondly, while we don't have the figures, the initial information we received was that his input would be a relatively minor % of the money coming in. As a result of this, he's not going to overtake the Trust’s shareholding %.
As has been said a few times now, this has been a negotiation. Terms have changed over that time. Interestingly, this has been something the Americans has been rather firm on. This isn't a situation where we can pick and choose the elements... It's all or nothing. If Jenkins raising his stake from 5-7 to 6-8 is a showstopper, then absolutely you can reject the deal. I suspect you won't be alone. I also suspect many will hold their noses and put up with it, for the benefits of the deal. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:54 - Jun 30 with 2497 views | SwansNZ |
The Yanks insist on keeping Dineen too? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:56 - Jun 30 with 2482 views | Uxbridge |
I love the naive comments. Usually when they're preceded by comments I think are naive.
You're right, the first paragraph is my opinion. I can't predict legal action with 100% certainly. I can guess though.
The second paragraph is also just your opinion. It's not really a gamble I want to take. This isn't the first offer on the table you know. If we thought there was considerable scope left on the table, negotiations would continue. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:04 - Jun 30 with 2443 views | Uxbridge |
That's a very separate issue, which really ties back to the Huw Jenkins being Chairman comments. Legal action will relate to the Trust shareholding, not who runs , or who is employed by, the club. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:05 - Jun 30 with 2434 views | nantywatcher |
I haven't said or intimated anything of the kind.
I'm saying that in all likelihood all the loud noises about rejecting the deal come from people who have not and never will spend their precious time fighting for a "better" deal. Five minutes attacking a keyboard and they're knackered. Respect is due to those people who have done their best for no personal reward. If you think you can do better - then get off your backside - and the best of luck. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:08 - Jun 30 with 2413 views | londonlisa2001 |
"You know as well as anyone that leaving a 21% shareholding with no protections at all is not really an option that we should pursue"
It has the protection of being able to take legal action which the deal gives up. (I'm not saying that would be my preferred course, but it's important).
" I do disagree that we lose - the only time this would be the case is if there was someone else prepared to pay a higher price for those particular shares"
That's the only scenario under which they'll exercise their option. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:11 - Jun 30 with 2400 views | Phil_S |
It has the protection of being able to take legal action which the deal gives up. (I'm not saying that would be my preferred course, but it's important).
Fair point but that only becomes a protection if the likelihood is that it precedes a win otherwise it is no protection at all
That's the only scenario under which they'll exercise their option.
Completely disagree that is the only time they will exercise their option, having the ability to call upon 3% shares for a potential new investor to get involved would never surely be dependent on us having someone prepared to pay a higher price? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:13 - Jun 30 with 2393 views | Joe_bradshaw |
Do the Trust have the funds to fight what would become a prolonged court case?
I'm sure the club would use delaying tactics at every opportunity. What happens when the Trust funds run out and the case hasn't reached a conclusion?
Going down the legal route would be a declaration of war on the club and any Trust involvement would end immediately and permanently under this ownership. Even in victory Jenkins remains as Chairman as long as the owners want him. Litigation might result in a better offer from the owners but will it result in what many of us would like i.e. The humiliation of Jenkins? I very much doubt it.
I'll be voting to accept with a slightly heavy heart because I want Jenkins out but that's simply not going to happen. The owners want him and he still owns around 6% of the shares so he's going nowhere. Ultimately we have to focus on what we can and can't change and influence and what the end game looks like. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:15 - Jun 30 with 2379 views | londonlisa2001 |
"£11m in any stretch of the imagination is not FA unless you are a football club in the Premier League or a player playing at that level earning crazy money. "
It's £5m not £11m - the rest is only a possibility. I think it's quite important that we don't get into the habit straightaway of referring to this as £11m. The difference between the two things is, for me, a crucial one. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:17 - Jun 30 with 2360 views | Starsky |
My heart says, legal action
Our club got raped and it feels like we're getting hush money to stop us going to court.
It feels wrong accepting this deal. If we do accept, who's to say that the Americans will continue to work with the trust as they have done, under the threat of legal action.
When the legal action threat taken away, we could be more vulnerable in the event of the whims of The Americans and Huw Jenkins.
For me, time has not lessened the treacherous act of the sell outs and if we accept this deal and have to suffer the continued involvement of Jenkins, Dineen & Jiffy with his Dutch Match day experience enterprises. Then it's really not our club anymore. Every match day will feel like a slap to our faces.
My head says go legal and that's what I will be voting for. | |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:19 - Jun 30 with 2352 views | londonlisa2001 |
"We have seen quite clearly since the turn of the year what can be achieved with everyone working together and whilst I fully accept and represent the view that many of our members have stamping our feet and giving it all away over a matter of principle is madness and completely against QC advice. "
Careful. The QC advice is not saying anyone would be giving it all away on a point of principle.
And, while i accept that people may well be working together in a lovely way, it can't be ignored that on the single most important point of all to many fans, Jenkins remaining as chairman, they are doing exactly what they want against all advice of the fan representatives, and there's nothing the Trust can do about it. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:24 - Jun 30 with 2318 views | londonlisa2001 |
"It is noticeable that at no point do the owners/management like the Trust saying "We weren't consulted" so that now happens less and less (and certainly not at all on major decisions) so I don't believe that consultation/involvement will be reduced as a result of this deal. Hit the litigate button and it may happen. Sorry make that it will happen "
That's just not true Phil. Unless you are saying that the insistence on Jenkins as chairman isn't a major decision. The person at the top of the football club?
And you have to anticipate that consultation and involvement will stop the minute the threat of litigation is removed from over their heads. If you don't assume that, then nothing has been learned from last year. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:25 - Jun 30 with 2315 views | Uxbridge |
I can understand the angst, however legal action doesn't actually result in resolving what you want resolved. It won't affect who is employed by the club. It won't affect who is chairman. Not in terms of the legal case, at least.
The choice is between a) accept the deal, or b) legal case, where the likely remedy if successful is a full sale, or c) none of the above. It isn't about Jenkins' tenure as Chairman. It just isn't. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:25 - Jun 30 with 2312 views | Pegojack |
This is how I feel too.
First of all, thanks to the Trust for working so hard to engineer this offer. I really appreciate all your efforts, which I never forget is done for no personal reward, only for love of our football club.
It sounds like the offer is close to the best one we're going to get, and I'll be voting to accept. Get the cash in the bank, let's make the Trust as financially strong as possible for the inevitable rainy day. The main beneficiaries of legal action are usually only the lawyers, and we have no guarantee of success.
The continued participation of Jenkins et al Is hard to swallow, but as the Rolling Stones said, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need!
And as for the Trust participating in financing expansion of the stadium, my reply when that request comes, will be to go and fornicate in the distance. If they Yanks want an expanded stadium, which will mainly benefit them, they can pay for it. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:25 - Jun 30 with 2312 views | pikeypaul |
There is a big difference in kneeling down and bending over.
But the Trust are doing both for the Americans and the
sellout scum.
Allow the scum to get away with what they have done and the Trust
may aswell be dead since it's not doing what it was set up to do. .
The Trust was set up to look after the interests of the fans and our club,
the first real time it's called upon to do this having been royally screwed
over its spokesman wants to in all affect pretend nothing has happened.
Principals need to be stood by, let's hope some of us have some.
We will win the case and they know it otherwise they would have already told the Trust to FO. [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 9:27]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:27 - Jun 30 with 2304 views | dameedna |
It is a fair point. We cant expect to know the details of the contract. Unless we put the hard yards in. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:29 - Jun 30 with 2284 views | londonlisa2001 |
Yes, and the likelihood is that it will precede a win. The QC has told you that.
On the second point - it's them having a higher price mun, not you. By definition, if it's a one way call option, they will only exercise it if they buy the shares from you at a lower price than they then sell them for. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
