| The Trust response on 18:35 - Dec 29 with 6890 views | monmouth |
No good being on the Trusts website and FAR too tame.
Why not 'angered' instead of 'disappointed'. This isn't a schoolteacher to pupil situation.
And why not 'deliberate inaccuracies' or if you must, 'what we can only assume to be deliberate inaccuracies'
It's time for a spine now, not a pussyfooting response hidden away. |  |
|  |
| The Trust response on 18:40 - Dec 29 with 6835 views | swancity |
| The Trust response on 18:35 - Dec 29 by monmouth |
No good being on the Trusts website and FAR too tame.
Why not 'angered' instead of 'disappointed'. This isn't a schoolteacher to pupil situation.
And why not 'deliberate inaccuracies' or if you must, 'what we can only assume to be deliberate inaccuracies'
It's time for a spine now, not a pussyfooting response hidden away. |
At least it's an early response. They do have to tread carefully for legal reasons but Jenkins could well be shooting himself in the foot. |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| The Trust response on 18:45 - Dec 29 with 6784 views | monmouth |
| The Trust response on 18:40 - Dec 29 by swancity |
At least it's an early response. They do have to tread carefully for legal reasons but Jenkins could well be shooting himself in the foot. |
Yes agree about early.
Maybe. But I'd be very disappointed if they are merely very disappointed, in fact I'd be f*cking tamping.
If it's not libelous this is no time to be reticent. He has declared war and is trying to set himself up as hard done by. He must be given both barrels. one way or the other. | |
| |
| The Trust response on 18:47 - Dec 29 with 6755 views | TheResurrection |
Is that it?? |  |
| |
| The Trust response on 18:47 - Dec 29 with 6753 views | 34dfgdf54 |
More to follow appearently.
They’ll take their time. |  | | |
| The Trust response on 18:48 - Dec 29 with 6735 views | Oldjack |
| The Trust response on 18:45 - Dec 29 by monmouth |
Yes agree about early.
Maybe. But I'd be very disappointed if they are merely very disappointed, in fact I'd be f*cking tamping.
If it's not libelous this is no time to be reticent. He has declared war and is trying to set himself up as hard done by. He must be given both barrels. one way or the other. |
Spot on ,he's calling the trust liars ,time to kick arse ! |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| The Trust response on 18:50 - Dec 29 with 6708 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
That statement isn’t good enough.
You are a 21% shareholder
Man up and start hitting him hard |  |
| |
| The Trust response on 18:51 - Dec 29 with 6693 views | exiledclaseboy |
| The Trust response on 18:35 - Dec 29 by monmouth |
No good being on the Trusts website and FAR too tame.
Why not 'angered' instead of 'disappointed'. This isn't a schoolteacher to pupil situation.
And why not 'deliberate inaccuracies' or if you must, 'what we can only assume to be deliberate inaccuracies'
It's time for a spine now, not a pussyfooting response hidden away. |
Give it a chance. As the statement says, there’ll be a fuller and more detailed response. The holding statement has been issued to the press as well. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Trust response on 18:52 - Dec 29 with 6673 views | Oldjack |
Resource Limit Is Reached
The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later. wtf ! | |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| The Trust response on 18:52 - Dec 29 with 6663 views | Darran |
No it does actually it isn’t. |  |
| |
| The Trust response on 18:55 - Dec 29 with 6637 views | 3swan |
| The Trust response on 18:51 - Dec 29 by exiledclaseboy |
Give it a chance. As the statement says, there’ll be a fuller and more detailed response. The holding statement has been issued to the press as well. |
I agree
Let's hope though that the detailed response will not hold back, where documented evidence can be shown, and the glossed over comments are proven to be totally wrong.
Not tine for vague response it must be totally factual black and white. | | | |
| The Trust response on 18:56 - Dec 29 with 6612 views | 3swan |
| The Trust response on 18:52 - Dec 29 by Oldjack |
Resource Limit Is Reached
The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later. wtf ! |
Trust’s initial response to Huw Jenkins’ interview with Wales Online.
December 29, 2017
0Share
3Share
Tweet
0Share
The Swansea City Supporters’ Trust was very disappointed to read today’s interview with Swansea City Club Chairman Huw Jenkins, which contains a number of inaccuracies about the sale of Swansea City and the Trust’s involvement in and knowledge of it. We will respond more fully on the detail in due course when we have properly considered the points made.
In the meantime, we can confirm that the Trust was made aware of the potential sale in March 2016, something we have always acknowledged. However, no formal offer for the purchase of Trust shares was ever made as part of the sale to Jason Levien and Steve Kaplan, which was completed in July 2016. | | | |
| The Trust response on 18:57 - Dec 29 with 6601 views | Highjack |
We'll get a further update in due course. |  |
| |
| The Trust response on 19:00 - Dec 29 with 6571 views | longlostjack |
I sometimes look too deeply into these things but could Jenkins and the Yanks be trying to draw out the Trust to see what their legal arguments might be in the event of litigation? Or is it just simply Jenkins trying to save his reputation with his dwindling band of supporters ? |  |
| |
| The Trust response on 19:01 - Dec 29 with 6572 views | monmouth |
| The Trust response on 18:51 - Dec 29 by exiledclaseboy |
Give it a chance. As the statement says, there’ll be a fuller and more detailed response. The holding statement has been issued to the press as well. |
OK.
I hope that the hawks have control of this though. Ceredigion patsies should be kept well away. We don't want Jenkins thanked again.
Ps I hope it wasn't you that not just split, but hung, drew and quartered that poor infinitive :) [Post edited 29 Dec 2017 19:03]
| |
| |
| The Trust response on 19:03 - Dec 29 with 6542 views | headcleaner |
maybe big nose has had enough and wants out and if he signed a contract to keep him at the club until next summer he is doing stuff like this press statement will force the yanks into sacking him or putting him on gardening leave?
what a rat. |  | | |
| The Trust response on 19:08 - Dec 29 with 6484 views | swancity |
| The Trust response on 18:45 - Dec 29 by monmouth |
Yes agree about early.
Maybe. But I'd be very disappointed if they are merely very disappointed, in fact I'd be f*cking tamping.
If it's not libelous this is no time to be reticent. He has declared war and is trying to set himself up as hard done by. He must be given both barrels. one way or the other. |
Absolutely. You talk a lot of sense and the Trust would be advised to listen. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| The Trust response on 19:09 - Dec 29 with 6471 views | Wingstandwood |
Yep, there is open goal presented to the Trust by the very filth that has caused Trust members, Trust officials, Swansea City supporters so much anger and stress! Revenge for the betrayal. contempt-shown, goading and carte blanche given to the likes of Van Zweden would be fair justice.
FFS bust the back of the f#cking net instead of ever so gently, ever so diplomatically, ever so ineffectually side footing the ball so it'll miss! |  |
| |
| The Trust response on 19:18 - Dec 29 with 6421 views | dobjack2 |
If this is not an irreconcilable breakdown with the chairman and owners I have no idea what one could be. | | | |
| The Trust response on 19:21 - Dec 29 with 6385 views | Private_Partz |
| The Trust response on 18:51 - Dec 29 by exiledclaseboy |
Give it a chance. As the statement says, there’ll be a fuller and more detailed response. The holding statement has been issued to the press as well. |
I agree with this. The Trust have been slow to react in the past.
This however is a long statemet from Jenkins which they claim contain inaccuracies and it is more than a tad patronising.
Jenkins making exscuses for them for not staying what he claims is the correct version of events.
As another poster said the Jenkins statement is a 'treasure trove'.
We all have opinions and it is much better they pool their resources on this rather than one person shooting from the hip in a knee jerk. The likes of Clasey and Lisa need input into this.
Having said that I sincerely hope the terms 'trust the board ' and 'building bridges' will not be anywhere near their final statement. |  |
| You have mission in life to hold out your hand,
To help the other guy out,
Help your fellow man.
Stan Ridgway
|
| |
| The Trust response on 19:21 - Dec 29 with 6382 views | londonlisa2001 |
Can I take one moment to laugh a lot at the opening comment from Jenkins :
"A group of shareholders who sold some shares in the club".
You didn't sell some shares in the club - you sold 68% of the club AND enough of your remaining voting rights to ensure the Trust couldn't ever do anything and YOU DIDNT KNOW WHO YOU SOLD THEM TO.
Sums the whole article up. | | | |
| The Trust response on 19:24 - Dec 29 with 6361 views | Private_Partz |
| The Trust response on 19:21 - Dec 29 by londonlisa2001 |
Can I take one moment to laugh a lot at the opening comment from Jenkins :
"A group of shareholders who sold some shares in the club".
You didn't sell some shares in the club - you sold 68% of the club AND enough of your remaining voting rights to ensure the Trust couldn't ever do anything and YOU DIDNT KNOW WHO YOU SOLD THEM TO.
Sums the whole article up. |
Go for it kid. Get stuck into the Trust follow up statement ;-) | |
| You have mission in life to hold out your hand,
To help the other guy out,
Help your fellow man.
Stan Ridgway
|
| |
| The Trust response on 19:30 - Dec 29 with 6309 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Trust response on 19:24 - Dec 29 by Private_Partz |
Go for it kid. Get stuck into the Trust follow up statement ;-) |
I've made a strong recommendation on a number of fronts :-)
Let's see. But in fairness, people are working and traveling about at this time of year and it takes a little bit of time to do anything other than issue a holding statement when it comes all a bit out of the blue.
I think I'd say though that the general mood is disappointed in the way that I was disappointed in Ayew's attempt to get stuck in for two of the goals at Liverpool. | | | |
| The Trust response on 19:32 - Dec 29 with 6300 views | harryhpalmer |
I think the Trust are correct to issue an interim statement refuting what has been claimed by Jenkins.
They need a detailed look at the points big nose has stated, and get the documentation and diaries out, to correct each one in detail, with evidence.
But the full response must come out in the next 24-48 hours and no later. | |
| |
| The Trust response on 19:39 - Dec 29 with 6242 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
The Trust need to take advice on this, I would not recommend a detailed response when there is still a chance of legal action. A simple response refuting Jenkins account of what happened is probably what is needed. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
