| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY 13:05 - Aug 11 with 31675 views | TheResurrection |
This is what we're up against.
Some won't even be there but if we went a goal down they won't be able to get to their keyboards quick enough.
This is what we were up against last season. Some of our fans, especially the ones posting on here, WANT us to fail.
Beware of the enemy within.
SUPPORT YOUR FOOTBALL CLUB - YOU WONT HAVE ANOTHER ONE |  |
| |  |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 19:37 - Sep 10 with 2903 views | Shaky |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 13:57 - Sep 9 by MattG |
Not sure how that's relevant to my point, to be honest, which was only about the validity of the Shareholders Agreement.
Notwithstanding that, how many times was it? |
i have said it before and I'll say it again; arguing that the Shareholders' Agreement is valid is harmful to the Trust's Unfair Prejudice action.
And whether by accident or design here is eBoy goading you into arguing exactly that.
Don't fall in to that trap. |  |
| |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 21:12 - Sep 10 with 2808 views | E20Jack |
I’m not goading anyone into anything. I am just stating the agreement is not valid. Because it isn’t. I wish it was and would be fully behind perusing it.
(If I am eboy, I cant quite keep up with your ever changing names for your heroes). |  |
| |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 22:13 - Sep 10 with 2781 views | MattG |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 19:23 - Sep 10 by _ |
I think the point was times change, opinions change, agreements change and in relation to your exact point the Trust were not in a position to buy the others shares out as per the Mel Nurse affair.
How many times was what? |
You asked "Can I remind you how many times the Trust said it would NEVER sell its shares?". |  | | |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 22:27 - Sep 10 with 2753 views | _ |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 22:13 - Sep 10 by MattG |
You asked "Can I remind you how many times the Trust said it would NEVER sell its shares?". |
God knows but I would say it was 'enough' |  |
| |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 06:57 - Sep 11 with 2654 views | MattG |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 22:27 - Sep 10 by _ |
God knows but I would say it was 'enough' |
Is zero enough?
"It is important for our members to be aware that at no time has the Supporters Trust ever stated that we would not sell all, or part, of our shareholding under any circumstances. The Supporters Trust has publicly stated many times (including prior to the sale being completed) that the Trust would not rule out a sale if it was in the best interests of the club and our members. Furthermore, any decision regarding a sale would have to be made by our Members, and not the Trust Board. This position was also outlined to our original shareholding partners in March 2016, once we became aware that a new deal was on the table, when we wrote a letter advising them that we could be prepared to sell some of the Trust stake should it be in our interests to do so."
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2017/04/11/a-statement-by-the-swansea-city-supporte | | | |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 07:05 - Sep 12 with 2536 views | MattG |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 06:57 - Sep 11 by MattG |
Is zero enough?
"It is important for our members to be aware that at no time has the Supporters Trust ever stated that we would not sell all, or part, of our shareholding under any circumstances. The Supporters Trust has publicly stated many times (including prior to the sale being completed) that the Trust would not rule out a sale if it was in the best interests of the club and our members. Furthermore, any decision regarding a sale would have to be made by our Members, and not the Trust Board. This position was also outlined to our original shareholding partners in March 2016, once we became aware that a new deal was on the table, when we wrote a letter advising them that we could be prepared to sell some of the Trust stake should it be in our interests to do so."
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2017/04/11/a-statement-by-the-swansea-city-supporte |
Ahem. | | | |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 09:22 - Sep 12 with 2464 views | costalotta |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 19:37 - Sep 10 by Shaky |
i have said it before and I'll say it again; arguing that the Shareholders' Agreement is valid is harmful to the Trust's Unfair Prejudice action.
And whether by accident or design here is eBoy goading you into arguing exactly that.
Don't fall in to that trap. |
At some point it will come out.
Certainly seems valid if you read between the lines and look at the actions of a certain individual. But, I don’t think this where the case will be won, should it get that far. Hahahahaha
Anyway, we will find out soon enough! |  | | |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 10:21 - Sep 12 with 2426 views | _ |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 07:05 - Sep 12 by MattG |
Ahem. |
Ahem??
Oh dear.... 😂😂😂 | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 10:23 - Sep 12 with 2423 views | _ |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 06:57 - Sep 11 by MattG |
Is zero enough?
"It is important for our members to be aware that at no time has the Supporters Trust ever stated that we would not sell all, or part, of our shareholding under any circumstances. The Supporters Trust has publicly stated many times (including prior to the sale being completed) that the Trust would not rule out a sale if it was in the best interests of the club and our members. Furthermore, any decision regarding a sale would have to be made by our Members, and not the Trust Board. This position was also outlined to our original shareholding partners in March 2016, once we became aware that a new deal was on the table, when we wrote a letter advising them that we could be prepared to sell some of the Trust stake should it be in our interests to do so."
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2017/04/11/a-statement-by-the-swansea-city-supporte |
"""The Barclays Premier League club have been in talks with American businessmen John Jay Moores and Charles Noell since last autumn.
The former owners of Major League baseball team the San Diego Padres set to make a significant cash injection in return for a 30 per cent stake in Swansea.
Both Swansea and the Supporters' Trust - who own 21 per cent of the club - have done due diligence on the American pair and negotiations have now entered a critical period.
"Talks are on-going and there's nothing on the table yet, no offer," said Cooze, the Supporters' Trust representative on the Swansea board.
"But I would imagine they would make that offer and be coming in here in the next month or so.
"If they do we'll have to cross that bridge then, but the Americans and our own shareholders know the Supporters' Trust shares are not for sale.
"They never will be and they appreciate that, and we will work with them if it (the deal) happens."
Swansea almost went bankrupt during the 2001-02 season before a supporters' buy-out of controversial Australian businessman Tony Petty rescued the club.
They were spared relegation from the Football League on the final day of the following season but Swansea have risen remarkably through the pyramid since and are currently enjoying a fourth season in the top flight of English football with Garry Monk's side settled in the top half of the table.
They are the only Premier League club part-owned by a Supporters' Trust, with a fan represented on the board, and Swansea have long been held up as an example of what can be achieved in English football without foreign investment.
But Swansea chairman Huw Jenkins hinted in November that the situation might not last when he asked whether the club could "operate in the same way for the next 10 years as it has in the past" or if "standing still and protecting what we already have is enough for us to compete in the future."
"You have to balance everything up and you can't say 'no, no, no or yes, yes, yes'," Cooze said.
"You have to weigh things up and we're a sensible organisation, we have professional advisers speaking to our lawyers and we have done our due diligence on the Americans.
"The club's lawyers are dealing with things as we speak but people here still feel they have a big part to play even if the Americans come in.
"It is only 30 per cent of the shareholding they are interested in purchasing at this present time, but the Supporters' Trust will not sell any of its shares and it will be others that get slowly diluted.
"We feel we're a community club and we don't need outside investment, individuals will say different and that's up to them.
"Good luck to them, but we feel as a body it's not right for us."
Swansea are currently in negotiations to buy the Liberty Stadium from the city council and are keen to increase the capacity of the 20,800 venue - the second smallest in the Premier League.
Plans have been approved to expand the existing capacity to 33,000 with more than 8,000 currently waiting for season tickets.
"We know we're possibly losing a generation by not expanding," Cooze said.
"We've been in the Premier League for four years and it is likely we're going to be here next season.""" | |
| |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 20:17 - Sep 12 with 2320 views | MattG |
That'll teach me - genuinely never seen that article before.
I suppose it's possible that Cooze's comments were just in the context of Yanks 1.0 but that's for others to argue if they want to.
It's still only once though.....  | | | |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 21:12 - Sep 12 with 2272 views | _ |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 20:17 - Sep 12 by MattG |
That'll teach me - genuinely never seen that article before.
I suppose it's possible that Cooze's comments were just in the context of Yanks 1.0 but that's for others to argue if they want to.
It's still only once though..... |
Ahem...
No point trying to be smug though was there.
And anyway, and let me tell you for certain. That mantra was always peddled out by the Trust. I'm not sure of how many internet quotes there are to be found, but that was ALWAYS the sentiment. It was only when Phil tried his own version of revisionism did they back peddle on the never selling bit.
It's all water under the bridge now anyway, but the Trust has been all over the shop for years and years and years. | |
| |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 01:03 - Sep 13 with 2187 views | E20Jack |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 21:12 - Sep 12 by _ |
Ahem...
No point trying to be smug though was there.
And anyway, and let me tell you for certain. That mantra was always peddled out by the Trust. I'm not sure of how many internet quotes there are to be found, but that was ALWAYS the sentiment. It was only when Phil tried his own version of revisionism did they back peddle on the never selling bit.
It's all water under the bridge now anyway, but the Trust has been all over the shop for years and years and years. |
This is where I felt the Trust initially failed. They were vocal about sticking to the initial goals set out upon its inception, one of which is to hold as high a stake as possible in the club.
I have always been critical of their short term thinking and that typified it. Unable to change with the surroundings and they got left behind, those goals should be every changing depending on the situation.
The lack of diverse thinking in the organisation has been scary at times. There must be an underlying acknowledgement and understanding that in order to reach that goal (and one I agree with) significant money must be gathered first, if that meant selling the shares initially then so be it - yes as your quote shows, it was always shut down as a viable avenue.
This of course culminated in the utterly bizarre pushing of that awful deal which almost wiped out the shareholding in return for such a small amount of money they could not fulfill that brief. They were happy to settle for conceding they could never protect the club.
We can only hope that this has changed since and lessons learned. Whether they have been remains to be seen. | |
| |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 12:08 - Sep 17 with 1999 views | costalotta |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 21:12 - Sep 12 by _ |
Ahem...
No point trying to be smug though was there.
And anyway, and let me tell you for certain. That mantra was always peddled out by the Trust. I'm not sure of how many internet quotes there are to be found, but that was ALWAYS the sentiment. It was only when Phil tried his own version of revisionism did they back peddle on the never selling bit.
It's all water under the bridge now anyway, but the Trust has been all over the shop for years and years and years. |
A couple of years ago you posting a case for NOT selling any of the Trust shares. We were in disagreement about that back then. Why have you changed your mind? | | | |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 13:02 - Sep 17 with 1974 views | _ |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 12:08 - Sep 17 by costalotta |
A couple of years ago you posting a case for NOT selling any of the Trust shares. We were in disagreement about that back then. Why have you changed your mind? |
I'm completely torn between what to think is the best outcome for the Trust's shares and SCFC. | |
| |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 13:12 - Sep 17 with 1965 views | costalotta |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 13:02 - Sep 17 by _ |
I'm completely torn between what to think is the best outcome for the Trust's shares and SCFC. |
Fair point.
Doesn’t matter now so much as this is likely to be settled either by mediation or the courts. I just think the Trust should have cashed in and out away for a rainy day.
I actually agree with some of the points made on this forum regarding the Trust not being able to be a shareholder that can invest (put money into the club). If you were Kaplan / Levien how would that work? They put money in, but not issue shares it should and would have to be matched proportional by the other shareholder and that unlikely. There’s been some talk of a South Wales consortium / Yank partnership but can anyone see that really happening.
But while we have this situation I do think the Trust have to go for it, even if it just forces the position of some of the old board to change. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them (old board) buying a proportional value of shares from the Trust, commensurate with the deal a few years ago. That might be best outcome we could hope for in terms of stability, the old board being brought to task and keeping the relatianship with the majority shareholders. The next then would be to find new buyers for the club and the trust being bought completely and having that rainy day fund In Tact. And the sell outs, gone out of club. | | | |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 13:29 - Sep 17 with 1950 views | _ |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 13:12 - Sep 17 by costalotta |
Fair point.
Doesn’t matter now so much as this is likely to be settled either by mediation or the courts. I just think the Trust should have cashed in and out away for a rainy day.
I actually agree with some of the points made on this forum regarding the Trust not being able to be a shareholder that can invest (put money into the club). If you were Kaplan / Levien how would that work? They put money in, but not issue shares it should and would have to be matched proportional by the other shareholder and that unlikely. There’s been some talk of a South Wales consortium / Yank partnership but can anyone see that really happening.
But while we have this situation I do think the Trust have to go for it, even if it just forces the position of some of the old board to change. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them (old board) buying a proportional value of shares from the Trust, commensurate with the deal a few years ago. That might be best outcome we could hope for in terms of stability, the old board being brought to task and keeping the relatianship with the majority shareholders. The next then would be to find new buyers for the club and the trust being bought completely and having that rainy day fund In Tact. And the sell outs, gone out of club. |
They probably do. Get some money, as long as it doesn't put SCFC's future in doubt, and move away from the spotlight. | |
| |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 20:35 - Feb 12 with 1445 views | chad |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 19:21 - Sep 6 by chad |
Angry and vengeful, if that were the case I would have never supported the res when he suggested we could be worse off without Jenkins.
What I have put there is a direct quote from the Guardian so they obviously thought he did.
In fact at the end of last season we went on the longest run of losses all season.
You may wish to peddle the shareholder agreement as a myth but that document was indeed a contractual agreement ratified by common enactment. At least Jenkins understood this, that is why he desperately tried to push the Trust to sign away their rights to it on the eleventh hour before the sale.
That is also why Jason tried to me he knew nothing about it when I fronted him on pushing through the sale without the known contractual rights of the Trust being met first.
That is despite according to the Trust providing the prospective new owners with a copy of that contract. In fact after denying any knowledge of it in that recorded meeting Jason then told me they had requested a copy - not sure how that works.
The Trust solicitors are also clear on the validity of this and is one of the issues the sellouts / new owners will be taken on
Lastly why do you think being from Swansea / having a connection to the club means doing a more capable job - we have seen how the sellouts have lied and cheated
In fact the likes of Leon and Angel who would be seen as some of the most committed members of the club are not even from Wales. |
Yes E20 I am sure it was you incorrectly denying that an unsigned contract can be seen as legally validated by compliance with its terms.
This post is a good central point but the discussion went from mid page 8 to page 11 of the thread just total denial of the truth and irrelevant exampe to deflect
This was not an issue as your false denials matter not. I was just trying to give you an example of the sort of circular argument rather than admit you are wrong that you engage in and that detracts from the sound logic of your other arguments. |  | | |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 01:13 - Feb 13 with 1322 views | The_E20 |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:31 - Sep 7 by E20Jack |
You didn't, you changed the quote to represent a time frame you applied. Again, he did not once say if we were relegated he would resign. Not once.
There is no peddling of any myths, the only myth is that the shareholders agreement was valid. Multiple shareholders did not sign it so how can it be valid? And why are the Trust not pursuing that angle? Because the paper is worthless. It may show some sort of special arrangement but not worth the paper it is written on in terms of a binding contract.
I don't think it matters where people are from, that tends to be other peoples argument regarding wanting whats best for the club. The only people that is going to want that is those that do not have a vested interest in the monetization of it i.e The Trust.
So the point is, if all owners are going to be in it for the money, isnt it better to keep those that we know are running the club at an even keel? |
This was my reply and I stand by it 100%, the SHA is not valid.
What I can’t work out however is what this has to do with indisputable fact that nobody in the history of mankind has ever been imprisoned for being a vegan, eating vegan food or giving vegan food to their family.
Of all the ridiculously odd posts and segways created due to losing a debate - this has to be up there by the most bizarre by quite some distance. |  | | |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:16 - Feb 13 with 1307 views | Loyal |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 01:13 - Feb 13 by The_E20 |
This was my reply and I stand by it 100%, the SHA is not valid.
What I can’t work out however is what this has to do with indisputable fact that nobody in the history of mankind has ever been imprisoned for being a vegan, eating vegan food or giving vegan food to their family.
Of all the ridiculously odd posts and segways created due to losing a debate - this has to be up there by the most bizarre by quite some distance. |
Hope you feel better for it. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:20 - Feb 13 with 1306 views | The_E20 |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:16 - Feb 13 by Loyal |
Hope you feel better for it. |
For what? | | | |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:27 - Feb 13 with 1301 views | Loyal |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:20 - Feb 13 by The_E20 |
For what? |
Your constant desire for confirmation of how correct you are in everything you say. | |
| 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 |
| |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:33 - Feb 13 with 1295 views | The_E20 |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:27 - Feb 13 by Loyal |
Your constant desire for confirmation of how correct you are in everything you say. |
You do realise I did not bump this thread yes?
When you are correct, you don’t need confirmation that you are, you just are.
It would be more accurate and pertinent to note the desire of certain individuals to go to great lengths to try and prove I’m not right about absolutely everything. But the best advice I can give to any budding E20 obsessive is - find something where I actually am wrong, it’s a good start.
On this SHA topic, its the importance of the difference between a signed document and an unsigned one. One is valid until proven otherwise the other is invalid until proven otherwise and the burden of disputes changes depending on which one is the case. As it stands the unsigned SHA is invalid - until proven otherwise. Of which there seems little confidence it would be proven to be valid due to the lack of appetite to peruse that avenue; an avenue that would win them the case there and then. [Post edited 13 Feb 2019 2:47]
| | | |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:35 - Feb 13 with 1291 views | Loyal |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:33 - Feb 13 by The_E20 |
You do realise I did not bump this thread yes?
When you are correct, you don’t need confirmation that you are, you just are.
It would be more accurate and pertinent to note the desire of certain individuals to go to great lengths to try and prove I’m not right about absolutely everything. But the best advice I can give to any budding E20 obsessive is - find something where I actually am wrong, it’s a good start.
On this SHA topic, its the importance of the difference between a signed document and an unsigned one. One is valid until proven otherwise the other is invalid until proven otherwise and the burden of disputes changes depending on which one is the case. As it stands the unsigned SHA is invalid - until proven otherwise. Of which there seems little confidence it would be proven to be valid due to the lack of appetite to peruse that avenue; an avenue that would win them the case there and then. [Post edited 13 Feb 2019 2:47]
|
Excellent, I am genuinely very pleased for you.
I'll do what you did and add more text to my post.
My advice to any Loyal obsessive is the same plus - when you try and be me on the internet never forget you will never be like me in the flesh.
Have a lovely day and don't forget, drama is often in the mind, reality on the other hand can be anything from a well oiled finger to a decently manicured ladies quiff.
[Post edited 13 Feb 2019 2:46]
| |
| 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 |
| |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:40 - Feb 13 with 1289 views | The_E20 |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:35 - Feb 13 by Loyal |
Excellent, I am genuinely very pleased for you.
I'll do what you did and add more text to my post.
My advice to any Loyal obsessive is the same plus - when you try and be me on the internet never forget you will never be like me in the flesh.
Have a lovely day and don't forget, drama is often in the mind, reality on the other hand can be anything from a well oiled finger to a decently manicured ladies quiff.
[Post edited 13 Feb 2019 2:46]
|
Cheers
Edit to reply to your edit - the rest of that is just painful nothingness. Quit while you are considerably behind. [Post edited 13 Feb 2019 20:53]
| | | |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:47 - Feb 13 with 1283 views | Loyal |
| Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:40 - Feb 13 by The_E20 |
Cheers
Edit to reply to your edit - the rest of that is just painful nothingness. Quit while you are considerably behind. [Post edited 13 Feb 2019 20:53]
|
It's my expert area 👠| |
| 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 |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
