| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 139725 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 13:28 - Jun 30 with 2535 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:20 - Jun 30 by Banosswan |
Social club and land for a pitch should a phoenix club be needed. |
Actually, that's something we know could be something the Trust could do. That's beyond the last resort though eh! |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:34 - Jun 30 with 2514 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:22 - Jun 30 by FerrieBodde |
If the Yanks and Jenkins have money to spend, why don't they invest it into the club (especially on players to ensure our PL survival) instead of trying to buy out the trust? Right group of c unts these blokes are. |
I suppose originally if the Yanks were prepared to pay £68m for a controlling interest they should have included the Trust and offered 68% of the Trust's 21% stake.
They then wouldn't have now needed to make an additional offer of £5m upfront for circa 5,000 Trust shares - leaving Trust with 16%.
Of course if that had originally happened then Huw Jenkins,Martin Morgan, Brain Katzen etc would have received considerably less proceeds.
So don't lay this on the Trust lay it on the Yanks and Selling Shareholders. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:46 - Jun 30 with 2484 views | max936 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:05 - Jun 30 by Dr_Winston |
The Trust have been in a difficult position since they got f*cked over in the first place. There's not much you can do about a betrayal that large, even if certain individuals should have been on the look out for one rather than allowing themselves to become a pet. That's where the mistakes were made.
I'll give them credit for getting from where we were to here. A death or glory legal battle could be fought yeah, but what would be the outcome? Chances are Jenkins would still be sitting pretty at the end of it no matter what, as Uxy says above.
I get the desire for vengeance. In an ideal world the arrogant big nosed c*nt and that useless tosser Dineen would be out on their arses tomorrow, but it's not an ideal world.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
My point raised about the Trust being able to work with Jenkins or even sit in the same room breathing the same air was a question I asked Phil, but he ignored my question, I appreciate all the work Phil and the others have put into the Trust which has all been voluntary, but a member has asked a question and it hasn't been answered, I've asked questions in the past that have been ignored as well, ffs
Doc could you carry on dealing with someone that's done what Jenkins and his slime balls have done? cause I couldn't I really couldn't, I wouldn't even be in the same room as any of them breathing the same air, I really wouldn't be able to stomach it even the thought of it winds me right up. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:51 - Jun 30 with 2473 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:26 - Jun 30 by Uxbridge |
They haven't to date. Acting unfairly against a minority shareholder in so blatant a fashion in doing so would be unwise and bring the legal aspects back into play. I would suggest you are dealing with theoreticals though. Some people theorising last week were saying the Trust stake was worthless. That's not proven to be accurate.
On a general note, the Trust going forward will need to remain vigilant to ensure the more recent relationships are adhered to, and included within agreement where practical. |
I theorised that the shares were worthless without 'tag' rights as the Trust then wouldn't have ever been able to exit.
You and the Trust team should be congratulated for bringing the Yanks to a position where they have offered the 'tag' rights. That is extremely important. That protects the value of the Trust's shares although now in a minority position.
The Yanks have paid a control premium but how much of this premium has gone to the selling shareholders and how much to the Trust?
The Trust is only receiving £5m upfront which suggests most of the control premium has gone to the selling shareholders.
The Trust is taking all the risk in regards of value of remaining 16% stake (should relegation occur) yet the selling shareholders walk away with the value of the control premium the Yanks have paid.
The Yanks by making this offer must think there is a big chance they will lose the case. I think legal action should be taken.
If the Yanks haven't got available funds - they should get together with the selling shareholders and offer to buyout 68% of the Trust's 21% stake on exactly same terms as the selling by shareholders. (I assume the residual stakes of the selling shareholders have 'tag' rights). | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:54 - Jun 30 with 2452 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:46 - Jun 30 by max936 |
My point raised about the Trust being able to work with Jenkins or even sit in the same room breathing the same air was a question I asked Phil, but he ignored my question, I appreciate all the work Phil and the others have put into the Trust which has all been voluntary, but a member has asked a question and it hasn't been answered, I've asked questions in the past that have been ignored as well, ffs
Doc could you carry on dealing with someone that's done what Jenkins and his slime balls have done? cause I couldn't I really couldn't, I wouldn't even be in the same room as any of them breathing the same air, I really wouldn't be able to stomach it even the thought of it winds me right up. |
Cake and eat it Max. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:07 - Jun 30 with 2430 views | DafyddHuw |
What's the story with the so-called "new" Articles?
and
Is there going to be a Q&A meeting before the vote? |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:26 - Jun 30 with 2400 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:46 - Jun 30 by max936 |
My point raised about the Trust being able to work with Jenkins or even sit in the same room breathing the same air was a question I asked Phil, but he ignored my question, I appreciate all the work Phil and the others have put into the Trust which has all been voluntary, but a member has asked a question and it hasn't been answered, I've asked questions in the past that have been ignored as well, ffs
Doc could you carry on dealing with someone that's done what Jenkins and his slime balls have done? cause I couldn't I really couldn't, I wouldn't even be in the same room as any of them breathing the same air, I really wouldn't be able to stomach it even the thought of it winds me right up. |
Given that Phil has answered a few other questions I doubt he's dodging this one, which is easy enough to answer. If you're not in the room then you're not going to have a say ... those on the Trust dealing with the club have to put their personal thoughts aside and act in the interests of the Trust. Simple as that really.
Not always easy though. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:27 - Jun 30 with 2393 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:51 - Jun 30 by Nookiejack |
I theorised that the shares were worthless without 'tag' rights as the Trust then wouldn't have ever been able to exit.
You and the Trust team should be congratulated for bringing the Yanks to a position where they have offered the 'tag' rights. That is extremely important. That protects the value of the Trust's shares although now in a minority position.
The Yanks have paid a control premium but how much of this premium has gone to the selling shareholders and how much to the Trust?
The Trust is only receiving £5m upfront which suggests most of the control premium has gone to the selling shareholders.
The Trust is taking all the risk in regards of value of remaining 16% stake (should relegation occur) yet the selling shareholders walk away with the value of the control premium the Yanks have paid.
The Yanks by making this offer must think there is a big chance they will lose the case. I think legal action should be taken.
If the Yanks haven't got available funds - they should get together with the selling shareholders and offer to buyout 68% of the Trust's 21% stake on exactly same terms as the selling by shareholders. (I assume the residual stakes of the selling shareholders have 'tag' rights). |
So you'll be voting for the legal option? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:35 - Jun 30 with 2371 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:07 - Jun 30 by DafyddHuw |
What's the story with the so-called "new" Articles?
and
Is there going to be a Q&A meeting before the vote? |
We know the articles changed last summer. The nature of how they changed doesn't make them invalid. We covered that in October as I recall?
Yes I believe another forum is scheduled.
Just to elaborate on one thing I said earlier that the plan was originally to try and perform both the ballots for the Trust board and the sale/legal vote at the same time. Given the timings needed for the board election to be fully complete by end of July, it'll probably mean that there'll be two mailings - first for the trust board, and later for the sale/legal ballot. Dates TBC. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:47 - Jun 30 with 2325 views | DafyddHuw |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:35 - Jun 30 by Uxbridge |
We know the articles changed last summer. The nature of how they changed doesn't make them invalid. We covered that in October as I recall?
Yes I believe another forum is scheduled.
Just to elaborate on one thing I said earlier that the plan was originally to try and perform both the ballots for the Trust board and the sale/legal vote at the same time. Given the timings needed for the board election to be fully complete by end of July, it'll probably mean that there'll be two mailings - first for the trust board, and later for the sale/legal ballot. Dates TBC. |
Thanks | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:01 - Jun 30 with 2288 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:46 - Jun 30 by max936 |
My point raised about the Trust being able to work with Jenkins or even sit in the same room breathing the same air was a question I asked Phil, but he ignored my question, I appreciate all the work Phil and the others have put into the Trust which has all been voluntary, but a member has asked a question and it hasn't been answered, I've asked questions in the past that have been ignored as well, ffs
Doc could you carry on dealing with someone that's done what Jenkins and his slime balls have done? cause I couldn't I really couldn't, I wouldn't even be in the same room as any of them breathing the same air, I really wouldn't be able to stomach it even the thought of it winds me right up. |
And of course I did answer it. Max, this thread aside if you are making posts on here and wanting them answered by me then it really isnt the best way. PM me direct, email me or use the contact form on the Trust website is the most effective way for an answer. I simple dont read every thread on here |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:49 - Jun 30 with 2215 views | DafyddHuw |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:01 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
And of course I did answer it. Max, this thread aside if you are making posts on here and wanting them answered by me then it really isnt the best way. PM me direct, email me or use the contact form on the Trust website is the most effective way for an answer. I simple dont read every thread on here |
Yes, but then nobody gets to see the question or your reply, only the person asking the question.
Seeing as the Trust won't have a forum on their website (which would be ideal for this situation), is it not possible to have an "Aquisition" section along with Football/Non-football/Tickets, if only for the next month? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:54 - Jun 30 with 2199 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:49 - Jun 30 by DafyddHuw |
Yes, but then nobody gets to see the question or your reply, only the person asking the question.
Seeing as the Trust won't have a forum on their website (which would be ideal for this situation), is it not possible to have an "Aquisition" section along with Football/Non-football/Tickets, if only for the next month? |
Indeed so but if people want a question answered it is the most effective way
Even if we had a Trust forum on the Trust website then it couldn't be monitored long enough for people to answer - we tried that with Facebook and simply don't have the resource to man it | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:59 - Jun 30 with 2190 views | DafyddHuw |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:54 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
Indeed so but if people want a question answered it is the most effective way
Even if we had a Trust forum on the Trust website then it couldn't be monitored long enough for people to answer - we tried that with Facebook and simply don't have the resource to man it |
Fair enough | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:08 - Jun 30 with 2172 views | DafyddHuw |
To those of you who are saying "Yes, the QC says we have a very good case, but there's a chance that we might lose so best not to go for it" -
By that logic, why do the Swans play football? With some games, we have a good chance of winning, most of the time we have a good chance of not winning (or we wouldn't be bottom half). So is it best that we don't play at all, on the assumption that we might lose?
Why even cross the road? We've looked right, looked left, looked right again, there's nothing coming, we've got a good chance of getting to the other side, but there's a chance that we might not. So let's not do it.
Do you call that sort of mentality the right way to live? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:09 - Jun 30 with 2167 views | Nookiejack |
If the Trust membership vote for legal action the Yanks will raise their offer. I think they would be forced to if membership is behind legal action.
If they don't then the membership accepts that it will not be receiving the same terms as the selling shareholders received - which is galling.
I want total fan control over the club and with the tag and drag rights that is now a possibility.
In some ways fans have a real stake in the club now if Trust Board recommendation is carried.
Premier survival will protect the value.
Trust is running similar risk to Yanks who have put their money at stake. Selling shareholders walk away with most of the proceeds and the control premium which the Yanks paid. (Run by the fans for the fans).
As Notrac said in earlier post Trust might have negotiated this position anyway if Yanks v2.0 had approached them last year. Trust then may have even wanted to keep 21% stake - if could have guaranteed 'tag' rights and minority protections - such as stopping Yanks taking out part of their return through management fees.
Also if Yanks v2.0 had originally offered 68% for Trust's 21% stake - then Trust would have received circa £14.3m. So currently difference of £9.3m (£14.3m - £5m). Trust runs the risk in respect of Yanks offer for remaining £5m - as will depend on PL survival.
It's a clever offer by the Yanks as appeals to the fans who want the Trust to keep a stake in the club - yet they only have to pay £5m to avoid the legal action. Difficult also for Trust Board to recommend taking legal action for potential £9.3m upside when could still lose legal action.
However if membership vote for legal action - I really think the Yanks will enhance the offer.
Do we know if Huw Jenkins has offered to pay £30k Trust legal fees? These could have all been avoided if chairman of the club at the time of Yanks v2.0 offer had ensured that all shareholders were party to the offer? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:12 - Jun 30 with 2161 views | swan_si |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:08 - Jun 30 by DafyddHuw |
To those of you who are saying "Yes, the QC says we have a very good case, but there's a chance that we might lose so best not to go for it" -
By that logic, why do the Swans play football? With some games, we have a good chance of winning, most of the time we have a good chance of not winning (or we wouldn't be bottom half). So is it best that we don't play at all, on the assumption that we might lose?
Why even cross the road? We've looked right, looked left, looked right again, there's nothing coming, we've got a good chance of getting to the other side, but there's a chance that we might not. So let's not do it.
Do you call that sort of mentality the right way to live? |
Thick as f*ck, fair play.  |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:16 - Jun 30 with 2155 views | DafyddHuw |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:12 - Jun 30 by swan_si |
Thick as f*ck, fair play. |
Thanks. I love it when you disagree with me, shows I'm doing something right. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:50 - Jun 30 with 2100 views | max936 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:26 - Jun 30 by Uxbridge |
Given that Phil has answered a few other questions I doubt he's dodging this one, which is easy enough to answer. If you're not in the room then you're not going to have a say ... those on the Trust dealing with the club have to put their personal thoughts aside and act in the interests of the Trust. Simple as that really.
Not always easy though. |
Its not that simple after what that man has done, Darran's just mentioned it and I have in the past, Cake and eat it, that's what's as simple as that, I couldn't and wouldn't never ever work with that man again after what he and his cronies have done, its called having pride and self respect about yourself. he's that arrogant he wouldn't even admit to doing wrong and that's why action should be taken. Deep down we knew that no action would be taken, just that its been drawn out for a 12 month.
Yanks and Jenkins can't believe their luck, they'll by Trust Shares and add a caveat to the deal that the Trust will have to put ex amount of that money back into the Club for any ground expansion, once that's spent how much will be left and what's next after that in their devious plans, dilution of the rest of the Trusts shares.
That's me done with this thread anyway. [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 16:59]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:58 - Jun 30 with 2069 views | max936 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:01 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
And of course I did answer it. Max, this thread aside if you are making posts on here and wanting them answered by me then it really isnt the best way. PM me direct, email me or use the contact form on the Trust website is the most effective way for an answer. I simple dont read every thread on here |
Well you answered a poster above my question, if that was a timing issue then fair enough as I didn't check, anyway I feel I've made my point about the situation absolutely clear, so its pointless me continuing. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:32 - Jun 30 with 2008 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:50 - Jun 30 by max936 |
Its not that simple after what that man has done, Darran's just mentioned it and I have in the past, Cake and eat it, that's what's as simple as that, I couldn't and wouldn't never ever work with that man again after what he and his cronies have done, its called having pride and self respect about yourself. he's that arrogant he wouldn't even admit to doing wrong and that's why action should be taken. Deep down we knew that no action would be taken, just that its been drawn out for a 12 month.
Yanks and Jenkins can't believe their luck, they'll by Trust Shares and add a caveat to the deal that the Trust will have to put ex amount of that money back into the Club for any ground expansion, once that's spent how much will be left and what's next after that in their devious plans, dilution of the rest of the Trusts shares.
That's me done with this thread anyway. [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 16:59]
|
What would you do Max if you were in work and a colleague screwed you over. You are told at that time that the colleague leaving is not an option, do you walk through principal and get another job?
This isn't even comparable. We have a stake in the club so by the very nature we have to work with it. It has been made clear that the position of the CHairman is not up for debate and he will remain in position. Do we just sign the shares over and walk away because of that
The strong case (QC words) is unfair prejudice, taking that will not change the above paragraph even if that was what the members wanted. If no action was ever planned then why do you think we bothered spending £30k on QC money let alone the time it has taken to present him with documents and statements which have all come at a substantial cost to the Trust board
And the Trust don't HAVE to reinvest anything, we have agreed we would consider it which is no hassle as we would always consider investment in things that benefit the club. That particular "caveat" really is no problem at all | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:41 - Jun 30 with 1988 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:32 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
What would you do Max if you were in work and a colleague screwed you over. You are told at that time that the colleague leaving is not an option, do you walk through principal and get another job?
This isn't even comparable. We have a stake in the club so by the very nature we have to work with it. It has been made clear that the position of the CHairman is not up for debate and he will remain in position. Do we just sign the shares over and walk away because of that
The strong case (QC words) is unfair prejudice, taking that will not change the above paragraph even if that was what the members wanted. If no action was ever planned then why do you think we bothered spending £30k on QC money let alone the time it has taken to present him with documents and statements which have all come at a substantial cost to the Trust board
And the Trust don't HAVE to reinvest anything, we have agreed we would consider it which is no hassle as we would always consider investment in things that benefit the club. That particular "caveat" really is no problem at all |
Obviously the Trust are going to go with the best most sensible option long term Phil but I can understand where Max is coming from as it makes me feel queasy too.
How a man,any man can act in such an underhand way and stay in his £500k a year job after pocketing millions is quite staggering,well to me it is anyway. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:53 - Jun 30 with 1970 views | monmouth |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:41 - Jun 30 by Darran |
Obviously the Trust are going to go with the best most sensible option long term Phil but I can understand where Max is coming from as it makes me feel queasy too.
How a man,any man can act in such an underhand way and stay in his £500k a year job after pocketing millions is quite staggering,well to me it is anyway. |
Funny enough I've just said forget Jenkins as he's irrelevant (he'll be there sue or not), but I'm thinking now that the Yanks would certainly hold him responsible for the litigation and he would be made extremely uncomfortable by them. I still don't see that in any way as the main driver in any decision here though. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:57 - Jun 30 with 1960 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:53 - Jun 30 by monmouth |
Funny enough I've just said forget Jenkins as he's irrelevant (he'll be there sue or not), but I'm thinking now that the Yanks would certainly hold him responsible for the litigation and he would be made extremely uncomfortable by them. I still don't see that in any way as the main driver in any decision here though. |
Absolutely agree. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:02 - Jun 30 with 1959 views | Dr_Winston |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:46 - Jun 30 by max936 |
My point raised about the Trust being able to work with Jenkins or even sit in the same room breathing the same air was a question I asked Phil, but he ignored my question, I appreciate all the work Phil and the others have put into the Trust which has all been voluntary, but a member has asked a question and it hasn't been answered, I've asked questions in the past that have been ignored as well, ffs
Doc could you carry on dealing with someone that's done what Jenkins and his slime balls have done? cause I couldn't I really couldn't, I wouldn't even be in the same room as any of them breathing the same air, I really wouldn't be able to stomach it even the thought of it winds me right up. |
Occasionally you have to hold your nose and deal with people you'd rather not. It's clear that Jenkins is going nowhere and that legal action won't change that, so dealing with the Devil becomes a necessity. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
