| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 139621 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 21:25 - Jun 29 with 3129 views | QJumpingJack |
"However, as we stated earlier, Steve and Jason are very firm in their backing of Huw Jenkins continuing in his role in the future. "
Have the Americans explained this to the Trust? Why they are backing him. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:25 - Jun 29 with 3126 views | NOTRAC |
Every year is a lottery in the Premiership.
Chasing £21m would be a lottery with no certainty of the right result.The court case would cause considerable disruption.
The Americans did not have to offer this.
It looks as though they are trying to pour oil on troubled waters.
£6m in the kitty with the possibility of £11m gives the Trust all the security they need.
They would still have 10% of the share capital left.
This is better than No shares even if in reality their value depends on the future goodwill of the American owners.
No let's accept, back them and go forward for the sake of the club. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:27 - Jun 29 with 3117 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:12 - Jun 29 by Swanzay |
Why aren't the Trust going after the sell outs? The would make alot of fans very happy. |
But isn't necessarily the most practical thing or the best thing for the future of SCFC. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:32 - Jun 29 with 3088 views | Swanzay |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:27 - Jun 29 by exiledclaseboy |
But isn't necessarily the most practical thing or the best thing for the future of SCFC. |
Just makes the Trust look weak all round.... |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:35 - Jun 29 with 3074 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:27 - Jun 29 by exiledclaseboy |
But isn't necessarily the most practical thing or the best thing for the future of SCFC. |
So Jenkins et al manage to evade any serious repercussions when their testicles were in the guilotine. Jesus Christ. But it's only what I've suspected all along. Strung you up like a kipper I think that's the phrase. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:36 - Jun 29 with 3065 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:27 - Jun 29 by exiledclaseboy |
But isn't necessarily the most practical thing or the best thing for the future of SCFC. |
Not necessarily but quite possibly. Seems they want to brush the serious misdemeanours under the carpet. Incredible. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:38 - Jun 29 with 3048 views | libertyx |
Prior to the meeting I was for litigation. The legal advice we have sought so far has cost us £30,000. If we do decide to go down legal route, it could cost 2-3 million pounds, even though we have a good case we can never be 100% sure of a win. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:43 - Jun 29 with 3026 views | NeathJack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:38 - Jun 29 by libertyx |
Prior to the meeting I was for litigation. The legal advice we have sought so far has cost us £30,000. If we do decide to go down legal route, it could cost 2-3 million pounds, even though we have a good case we can never be 100% sure of a win. |
I was there as well. I don't believe it would cost as much as that bloke was claiming.
If it was to cost that much, then the option wouldn't still be on the table as it would be unaffordable. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:46 - Jun 29 with 3003 views | max936 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:23 - Jun 29 by pencoedjack |
Apology would mean fuk all to me
Needs to leave and take the rest of the sell outs with him [Post edited 29 Jun 2017 21:25]
|
Seems like we'll never be rid of Jenkins and he's squirming his way back into the Trust, I'm sorry, but the man cannot be trusted and I'm not gonna support that one iota. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:52 - Jun 29 with 2971 views | A_Fans_Dad |
"We have been asked to consider a reinvestment of 20% of these sale earnings back into the club, in the event of any future stadium expansion."
"asked to consider" is not the same as "We will re-invest". | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:54 - Jun 29 with 2944 views | UplandsJack |
JENKINS OUT, OUT, OUT! |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:55 - Jun 29 with 2937 views | Kilkennyjack |
Take the money.
Its a good deal |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:00 - Jun 29 with 2904 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:52 - Jun 29 by A_Fans_Dad |
"We have been asked to consider a reinvestment of 20% of these sale earnings back into the club, in the event of any future stadium expansion."
"asked to consider" is not the same as "We will re-invest". |
You are absolutely right that it isn't the same as we will re-invest. And the reason it isn't the same is we cannot say we will re-invest without understanding what the re0investment will be used for and what terms (if any) will be attached to it (i.e. what do we get and how will it be used) hence why it was described several times as subject to terms and member approval as/when it comes up to be in question
Some valid points raised here but the reality is there are two feasible options. Litigation or take the deal. Litigation comes at a large cost (and as NeathJack suggests possibly not the £3m quoted from the floor but it wouldn't take long to spend all our money) and there is no guarantee of success. Even the QC that said the case looks strong has suggested negotiation is the first route to get to an agreement which almost could suggest he believes that a win is no guarantee.
And that is before the massive damage it could (and would) cause the football club has been considered
The deal isn't what we would have got last summer but its a deal that (as Notrac) said could see us end with a war chest of £11m, a retaining interest in the club and therefore the influence (that somebody asked why we would consider losing it) and the protection of the valuation of the shares at the same share value of the other shareholders.
Somebody said that the (I think this is the phrase) the selling shareholders had their testicles in a vice and the question was asked. If a court of law found that the shareholders agreement was valid (and despite our belief it is a long way from a guarantee) then the reality is they are in breach but there is no real recourse (in other words it wouldn't unwind the deal or put us where we are)
There is little point in paying for top QC advice and ignoring it really... |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:02 - Jun 29 with 2884 views | pencoedjack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:46 - Jun 29 by max936 |
Seems like we'll never be rid of Jenkins and he's squirming his way back into the Trust, I'm sorry, but the man cannot be trusted and I'm not gonna support that one iota. |
If I'm honest I don't really know what the best way forward is for the trust ( as an outsider I'd probably take the money & save it for the inevitable rainy day)
But
Jenkins and the rest of his cronies fuked them over, to me that is unforgivable & any negotiations should begin with them being removed from the club |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:07 - Jun 29 with 2855 views | QJumpingJack |
Can we trust The Americans?
In the last year, they have made plenty of decisions where the Trust have not been included (eg Bob Bradley appointment).
Will this continue in the future with "sorry, we forgot to tell you". | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:10 - Jun 29 with 2834 views | UplandsJack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:52 - Jun 29 by A_Fans_Dad |
"We have been asked to consider a reinvestment of 20% of these sale earnings back into the club, in the event of any future stadium expansion."
"asked to consider" is not the same as "We will re-invest". |
Umm really.....
These guys are clever foookers and they will have already planned how to leverage that money back if we go along with offer.
No for me any deal has to include Jenkins removal totally from the club.
Or buy ALL our shares at last year's price.
If neither of these options are accepted it's got to be court. As others have said, theyre obviously very concerned we will win. Push hard enough and they will give. Then they will jettison Jenkins quick as. They still need to fully understand the true level of disdain the fans have towards him .... [Post edited 29 Jun 2017 22:13]
| | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:10 - Jun 29 with 2830 views | NeathJack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:00 - Jun 29 by Phil_S |
You are absolutely right that it isn't the same as we will re-invest. And the reason it isn't the same is we cannot say we will re-invest without understanding what the re0investment will be used for and what terms (if any) will be attached to it (i.e. what do we get and how will it be used) hence why it was described several times as subject to terms and member approval as/when it comes up to be in question
Some valid points raised here but the reality is there are two feasible options. Litigation or take the deal. Litigation comes at a large cost (and as NeathJack suggests possibly not the £3m quoted from the floor but it wouldn't take long to spend all our money) and there is no guarantee of success. Even the QC that said the case looks strong has suggested negotiation is the first route to get to an agreement which almost could suggest he believes that a win is no guarantee.
And that is before the massive damage it could (and would) cause the football club has been considered
The deal isn't what we would have got last summer but its a deal that (as Notrac) said could see us end with a war chest of £11m, a retaining interest in the club and therefore the influence (that somebody asked why we would consider losing it) and the protection of the valuation of the shares at the same share value of the other shareholders.
Somebody said that the (I think this is the phrase) the selling shareholders had their testicles in a vice and the question was asked. If a court of law found that the shareholders agreement was valid (and despite our belief it is a long way from a guarantee) then the reality is they are in breach but there is no real recourse (in other words it wouldn't unwind the deal or put us where we are)
There is little point in paying for top QC advice and ignoring it really... |
Phil, it was unclear tonight (at least to me, I may have missed it) as to when this offer from the Yanks was made. i.e. when was it first indicated they would be looking to make a serious offer?
Was it before or after the meeting was called and if no offer had been forthcoming, would the recommendation have been to go for legal action?
Thanks. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:15 - Jun 29 with 2794 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:10 - Jun 29 by NeathJack |
Phil, it was unclear tonight (at least to me, I may have missed it) as to when this offer from the Yanks was made. i.e. when was it first indicated they would be looking to make a serious offer?
Was it before or after the meeting was called and if no offer had been forthcoming, would the recommendation have been to go for legal action?
Thanks. |
OK the full detail of what we outlined came through today but the indications were as early as December that they would consider an offer (this was when we all agreed to postpone discussions until the end of the season) and the first stages of that offer came on the night of the West Brom game (I think from memory we advertised that we were meeting them after that game)
It's difficult to know what the recommendation would have been tonight had no offer been forthcoming - really that would have been down to QC on how to play it. His advice has always been negotiate and work towards an amicable solution - had the guys said "there will be no deal" then I guess he would have said you can present just two options. He may have said you present them with a recommendation or you present them as they are and let others make their minds up on the facts.
What I do know is that - having been present at pretty much all the discussions for the negotiation - we have moved this on a lot, have presented many reservations and got to the stage where this was an offer we can recommend but ultimately as we said many times the final decision lies with the members, time will tell whether tonight's mood is reflective of the wider membership
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:16 - Jun 29 with 2779 views | NeathJack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:15 - Jun 29 by Phil_S |
OK the full detail of what we outlined came through today but the indications were as early as December that they would consider an offer (this was when we all agreed to postpone discussions until the end of the season) and the first stages of that offer came on the night of the West Brom game (I think from memory we advertised that we were meeting them after that game)
It's difficult to know what the recommendation would have been tonight had no offer been forthcoming - really that would have been down to QC on how to play it. His advice has always been negotiate and work towards an amicable solution - had the guys said "there will be no deal" then I guess he would have said you can present just two options. He may have said you present them with a recommendation or you present them as they are and let others make their minds up on the facts.
What I do know is that - having been present at pretty much all the discussions for the negotiation - we have moved this on a lot, have presented many reservations and got to the stage where this was an offer we can recommend but ultimately as we said many times the final decision lies with the members, time will tell whether tonight's mood is reflective of the wider membership
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Cheers. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:17 - Jun 29 with 2773 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:16 - Jun 29 by NeathJack |
Cheers. |
I added the final paragraph after your reply. Just for the avoidance of doubt of anyone reading!! | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:18 - Jun 29 with 2759 views | Swanseajill |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:02 - Jun 29 by pencoedjack |
If I'm honest I don't really know what the best way forward is for the trust ( as an outsider I'd probably take the money & save it for the inevitable rainy day)
But
Jenkins and the rest of his cronies fuked them over, to me that is unforgivable & any negotiations should begin with them being removed from the club |
The Americans are the owners and are in the driving seat for the time being.
They want him at the club, despite hearing what many fans felt towards him in the last Trust meeting that they attended.
If litigation is pursued, the media will have a field day putting half truths and hearsay in print. Stuff that could cause harm to he club, and what we all want surely....is, what's the best outcome for our football club. [Post edited 29 Jun 2017 22:25]
|  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:20 - Jun 29 with 2736 views | Jack_y_Jwc |
It's important to remember the value of the club off field. Even if we are relegated we still have first class training facilities and academy, so the club will never be sold on the cheap like it has done previously. I'm not convinced the money offered will be of benefit to the trust. What's the value of this alone?
As a result of this, Off the bat we should reject the offer that shares are sold to HJ. Balls to that, we deal with the Americans and them only. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:23 - Jun 29 with 2706 views | Whiterockin |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:09 - Jun 29 by UplandsJack |
Sorry but I cannot accept Jenkins being a part of any deal...
For me I'd counter their offer with any of the following 3 options.
1/ Buy ALL our shares now at last year's sale price. That way we have a massive £21 million war chest for a rainy day, when our club will need it most.
2/ Get guarantee that Jenkins will be removed completely with immediate affect, then proceed with offer as outlined in email.
3/ Otherwise for me it's got to be court action. We will win. We know it, they know it. Why else would they offer us what they have.... They are probably behind Jenkins buying the shares. He's landed them in this mess, they now want him to cough up to solve it/make it go away.
The guy is a parasite. We must not work/trust him............. |
TBH I tend to go along with this. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:23 - Jun 29 with 2706 views | NeathJack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:17 - Jun 29 by Phil_S |
I added the final paragraph after your reply. Just for the avoidance of doubt of anyone reading!! |
Thanks.
I think my biggest concerns, other than the hideous fact that Jenkins is still involved, are (1) that if this offer is accepted and the threat of legal action is no longer hanging over the Americans, the recent improved relationship that they have been prepared to have with the Trust will dissipate and (2) the threat of future dilution of shares which could in effect use up the money earned in this sale in order for the Trust to simply to remain at the already reduced shareholding. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:24 - Jun 29 with 2690 views | Uxbridge |
Just a quick post from me because it's been a busy night and I need some sleep! But will try to cover a few things.
The Trust board didn't need to be psychic to know that the Jenkins clause would be an issue for some. However it's something the Americans have been very keen on. As a Trust board, we need to look at whether it's a showstopper for us.. And given that he already has a shareholding and rejection of that clause quite possibly means the whole deal could fall through, then the Trust board took the decision it did. It'd be much cleaner if he wasn't part of the deal, but there we go. Either way, he's going nowhere as anyone who attended the American forum will understand.
The 20% reinvestment, as someone else said, isn't set in stone by any means. It's really an agreement to look at a future proposal, which would then be voted upon by the members.
Accepting the deal would obviously mean legal action doesn't proceed. The legal case is strong, but it isn't guaranteed. When your own QC is saying that it's a last resort then you need to take notice. However it is a strong case, and if members feel it best to proceed with that rather than accept the offer then so be it. There are upsides and downsides to legal action. Obvious upside is that it could force a full sale. Downside to some is that it would force a full sale.. Many members will always support retaining a stake in the club. There are also other factors... It will turn the club upside down, and have a significant impact on the existing relationships.. They quite probably end in truth. Then there are the costs... A few million like that chap said is probably rather high, but it could result in the existing Trust pot being wiped out. Some will want to take that chance. I can understand that, but for me, the offer is a better path to take. One final thing to note here, there no clean path to just taking legal action against the sellers. Unfair prejudice brings the buyers into play. Unpalatable to some I totally get.
As for the deal, there are bits I'd like to improve but then that's always case. However I think it ticks a lot of my concerns.. It gives the Trust serious financial clout that it could use for many things, or even just to defend against dilution. The tag along clauses protect against being excluded from future sales and also protect the financial value of the stake. I'd rather there wasn't a drag along, but I think the positives far outweigh on that score.
Am sure there's plenty I've missed, but that covers most from my side. It's not without issues but it's a deal I think is in the best interests of the Trust, its members and the general fanbase. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
