| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 139139 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 12:26 - Jul 1 with 2264 views | Pokerface |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:29 - Jun 30 by NeathJack |
Phil,
Has the QC been asked for/given his opinion on whether the Trust board recommending acceptance of the Yanks offer would have any prejudicial effect on the case going to court if the members voted against the offer on the table? i.e. Does it weaken the legal route.
Thanks. |
Neath. QC doesn't know details of the offer - see UX post -
"The QC hasn't reviewed the final offer. The advice from the QC relates to the strength of the legal case and strategy." |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:32 - Jul 1 with 2261 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:40 - Jul 1 by Shaky |
Such approval presumably based on the judicious determination that the elements of a settlement deemed critical last year articulated in the form of an "ultimatum" are no longer determined to be of any significance.
Is that right? |
Of course, those conditions related to maintaining a full stake. That's not the advised position in the circumstances. So let's look at the part sale scenario. True enough, there's no agreement on veto powers or dilution. However there has been agreement on a number of other things important to the Trust ... part sale will cover dilution to some degree if that's something we want to do in the future (the members may think the £6m in the bank could be put to better use) and getting key tag-along rights. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:34 - Jul 1 with 2257 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:26 - Jul 1 by Pokerface |
Neath. QC doesn't know details of the offer - see UX post -
"The QC hasn't reviewed the final offer. The advice from the QC relates to the strength of the legal case and strategy." |
It's not a question that I would feel we need to go to a QC for ... legal advice we already have says that it's not relevant.
I'm out of here ... air show beckons. [Post edited 1 Jul 2017 12:35]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:02 - Jul 1 with 2212 views | union_jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:32 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
Of course, those conditions related to maintaining a full stake. That's not the advised position in the circumstances. So let's look at the part sale scenario. True enough, there's no agreement on veto powers or dilution. However there has been agreement on a number of other things important to the Trust ... part sale will cover dilution to some degree if that's something we want to do in the future (the members may think the £6m in the bank could be put to better use) and getting key tag-along rights. |
Put it into property.
Now, have I got a deal for you!! |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:14 - Jul 1 with 2203 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:21 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
Nobody's forgotten what has happened in the past. Impossible to.
On the wanting an improved offer point ... well, wouldn't we all. However it's worth noting that the offer we have now has been the result of negotiations over the last couple of months. This wasn't the first, but we believe it's as far as we can get them to move. If you want to reject the deal because you think pushing for legal action will result in a better one, then fine, however a) you're going to get to the point at some point where the Americans will think "fine, it's a better deal now for us to take our chances in court" and b) what are you actually expecting that better deal to look like, and in what way will it benefit the interests of the Trust and its members.
We all have long memories. Everyone should remember the actions of last year. No doubt there'll always be an asterisk against certain individuals because of it. All so unnecessary as well, if only things had been done properly. However, you have to get to the point where you decide to either work with the reality (which isn't going to change even if it goes to court) or think nah, feck it. |
A better deal is selling a sufficient amount of shares that will allow the Trust to actually fulfil what it was set up for. To protect the future of the club.
£5m won't save anything.
We need to be thinking long term. The only way we can safeguard the future of the football club is by having majority fan ownership. The only way that can happen is if we bank enough money to be able to do that when the club hits rough times.
As Lisa has already pointed out. Leyton Orient were sold for £4m who had completely lost their league status. We need to be looking at £10m - £15m before we can start to relax and feel we actually have something worth settling on. £5m solves nothing.
£10m up front for 10% shares and 1% sale every year for the next 6 years providing we stay in the league. That gives the Trust a potential £16m rainy day fund and a 5% shareholder seat that retains its value through the tag and drag deal. [Post edited 1 Jul 2017 13:18]
|  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:06 - Jul 1 with 2104 views | thereisnospoon |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:59 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
The Trust most definitely have not gone soft - please dont confuse recommending not taking a nuclear option as that.
Having considered the facts and options in front of us we believe that taking the rainy day fund and keeping a input that allows us to keep close eye on club governance is a better option then gambling our money on a case that we may lose (and for balance yes I know we may win)
And a case that will not give us what I think from reading this what most people want
However, as said before it isn't my decision so its very soon going to be a call for the members as we take the consultation process all the way through
The simple question to ask yourselves before you vote is what do you want as the result as an individual because the likely outcome to any litigation is a complete sale of the Trust shares.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
"The simple question to ask yourselves before you vote is what do you want as the result as an individual because the likely outcome to any litigation is a complete sale of the Trust shares. "
why would litigation lead to a complete sale of the trust shares? can someone please explain? thanks. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:07 - Jul 1 with 2103 views | Borojack |
| 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. |
Baston 15
Llorente 5
Mawson 5
Fer 3.5
Carroll 5
Olson 4
Narsingh 4.5
Ayew 5 after swapping Taylor.
We sold
Williams 12
Ayew 20
Eder 3
So I make that 45 million spent not including signing on fees which will be significant.
35 million sold .
Our wage to turnover is the highest in the league.
So not sure where this notion of zero investment comes from.
Or are you saying they should just donate us a load of cash.
Yes the sale was sneaky and underhanded but let's stick to the facts.
I would go with the Trust recommendation personally.
The clilubs future needs to be put before revenge against the sellouts. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:09 - Jul 1 with 2092 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:07 - Jul 1 by Borojack |
Baston 15
Llorente 5
Mawson 5
Fer 3.5
Carroll 5
Olson 4
Narsingh 4.5
Ayew 5 after swapping Taylor.
We sold
Williams 12
Ayew 20
Eder 3
So I make that 45 million spent not including signing on fees which will be significant.
35 million sold .
Our wage to turnover is the highest in the league.
So not sure where this notion of zero investment comes from.
Or are you saying they should just donate us a load of cash.
Yes the sale was sneaky and underhanded but let's stick to the facts.
I would go with the Trust recommendation personally.
The clilubs future needs to be put before revenge against the sellouts. |
You could add the Shelvey money to that. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:10 - Jul 1 with 2098 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:06 - Jul 1 by thereisnospoon |
"The simple question to ask yourselves before you vote is what do you want as the result as an individual because the likely outcome to any litigation is a complete sale of the Trust shares. "
why would litigation lead to a complete sale of the trust shares? can someone please explain? thanks. |
Advice is that a full purchase by the Americans on the same terms as last summer would be the remedy for unfair prejudice.
We wouldn't get to win the case and then decide what we want out of it. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:12 - Jul 1 with 2097 views | Borojack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:09 - Jul 1 by Darran |
You could add the Shelvey money to that. |
Wasn't that before the new owners arrived. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:17 - Jul 1 with 2092 views | NOTRAC |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:14 - Jul 1 by E20Jack |
A better deal is selling a sufficient amount of shares that will allow the Trust to actually fulfil what it was set up for. To protect the future of the club.
£5m won't save anything.
We need to be thinking long term. The only way we can safeguard the future of the football club is by having majority fan ownership. The only way that can happen is if we bank enough money to be able to do that when the club hits rough times.
As Lisa has already pointed out. Leyton Orient were sold for £4m who had completely lost their league status. We need to be looking at £10m - £15m before we can start to relax and feel we actually have something worth settling on. £5m solves nothing.
£10m up front for 10% shares and 1% sale every year for the next 6 years providing we stay in the league. That gives the Trust a potential £16m rainy day fund and a 5% shareholder seat that retains its value through the tag and drag deal. [Post edited 1 Jul 2017 13:18]
|
Leyton Orient is not a good example.The £4m was paid to purchase the club from former owner Barry Hearn when the club was quite successful by Italian Francesco Bacchetti.In fact the Italian invested another £6m but because of his disastrous management the club slipped down the leagues regardless.
What is interesting is that Barry Hearn retained the lease on Brisbane Road which he had purchased some years previously.He charged Bacchetti £1m per year for rent which is a hell of a lot of money to find for a bottom division club.
As the Americans will shortly be acquiring the Liberty lease, I am amazed that no one seems to worry about this, as this could cause similar problems in the future if Swansea got into similar trouble. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:19 - Jul 1 with 2078 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:12 - Jul 1 by Borojack |
Wasn't that before the new owners arrived. |
Well yes it is but it could still be included in the transfer budget of that time couldn't it? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:43 - Jul 1 with 2050 views | max936 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:21 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
Nobody's forgotten what has happened in the past. Impossible to.
On the wanting an improved offer point ... well, wouldn't we all. However it's worth noting that the offer we have now has been the result of negotiations over the last couple of months. This wasn't the first, but we believe it's as far as we can get them to move. If you want to reject the deal because you think pushing for legal action will result in a better one, then fine, however a) you're going to get to the point at some point where the Americans will think "fine, it's a better deal now for us to take our chances in court" and b) what are you actually expecting that better deal to look like, and in what way will it benefit the interests of the Trust and its members.
We all have long memories. Everyone should remember the actions of last year. No doubt there'll always be an asterisk against certain individuals because of it. All so unnecessary as well, if only things had been done properly. However, you have to get to the point where you decide to either work with the reality (which isn't going to change even if it goes to court) or think nah, feck it. |
I'm getting severely fuked off by all this, it feels to me that we're having our bellies tickled by these Yanks and most are looking at the 5 or 6 million on offer and saying take take it, the bigger picture to me suggest we'll have little or no say at all if we sell, as it stands we haven't got much now, the Yanks are saying Jenkins ain't going blah blah blah which suggests they're condoning what he's done, they got to up the anti big time for me and that includes Jenkins off JVZ premier league sideline ceases to exist and the Trust with better guarantees.
This Club is over a hundred yrs old and yet Huckleberry fin and his mates stroll in and lay down the rules, not in my fuking name they don't. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 12:09]
|  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:45 - Jul 1 with 2049 views | harryhpalmer |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:17 - Jul 1 by NOTRAC |
Leyton Orient is not a good example.The £4m was paid to purchase the club from former owner Barry Hearn when the club was quite successful by Italian Francesco Bacchetti.In fact the Italian invested another £6m but because of his disastrous management the club slipped down the leagues regardless.
What is interesting is that Barry Hearn retained the lease on Brisbane Road which he had purchased some years previously.He charged Bacchetti £1m per year for rent which is a hell of a lot of money to find for a bottom division club.
As the Americans will shortly be acquiring the Liberty lease, I am amazed that no one seems to worry about this, as this could cause similar problems in the future if Swansea got into similar trouble. |
The difference is the Club would be taking on the lease not the owners.
There is a significant difference.
The worry is if they are able to borrow against it or sell it on. Hopefully the Council will put some protection in there. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:49 - Jul 1 with 2043 views | NOTRAC |
Who owns the club.? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:09 - Jul 1 with 2012 views | harryhpalmer |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:45 - Jul 1 by harryhpalmer |
The difference is the Club would be taking on the lease not the owners.
There is a significant difference.
The worry is if they are able to borrow against it or sell it on. Hopefully the Council will put some protection in there. |
While there is obviously a risk in if we take the deal on offer as has been pointed out, and agree not to take legal action on last year's sale of shares; they then just ignore the Trust. But realistically, what is the point in them doing that?
It is pretty obvious that they did not like it when the atmosphere went toxic at the Liberty last season.
Do we really think that they'd fancy a return to that kind of situation, if they shafted the Trust again? They would have the media on their back; the fans on their back. And then the sponsors and commercial partners becoming unhappy, just when they are looking to build revenues.
They have big bucks in play here. They want, and need a harmonious club in order to be successful and a return on their investment.
They were really spooked by last season's debacle. I'm not sure they want a return to that.
That's not to say everything they do will be in our interests moving forward. But without some presence to see what it is they are doing, how are we going to know?
That's why I think it is important that we remain a significant shareholder; a gatekeeping role to watch over them and big nose, rather than get surprised when it is too late to do anything.
It's not an ideal situation. Having a 25% or more shareholding would be my preference. But that's a wish that is long gone now.
And £5m is a drop in the ocean when you see the debts clubs like Leeds, Bolton, QPR have got themselves into. £15-20m isn't going to do much either based on those scenarios. Being able to influence the club not to do stupid things is more valuable IMO. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:13 - Jul 1 with 2000 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:34 - Jun 30 by BLAZE |
If you want Jenkins out then litigation isn't a route towards that happening
Let me get this right then Phil - if we were to pursue legal action, and with a strong case were to find Jenkins guilty... you think he'll get to keep his position at the club. Really?
Common sense tells me a vote for legal action is absolutely a vote toward the removal of Jenkins. |
It'll be a civil action, guilt or innocence won't be an issue in any meaningful criminal sense unless the police are involved. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:38 - Jul 1 with 1970 views | BLAZE |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:13 - Jul 1 by exiledclaseboy |
It'll be a civil action, guilt or innocence won't be an issue in any meaningful criminal sense unless the police are involved. |
I was waiting for that when I posted but didn't bother editing. Usual semantics, you know exactly the point I was making. If he was proven to have done wrong, I can't see how he gets to keep his position. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:45 - Jul 1 with 1943 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:38 - Jul 1 by BLAZE |
I was waiting for that when I posted but didn't bother editing. Usual semantics, you know exactly the point I was making. If he was proven to have done wrong, I can't see how he gets to keep his position. |
Ok, no need to be stroppy. I wasn't trying to be. I understand your feelings about Jenkins et al but as has been stated, legal action won't remove him or Dineen. I agree it would be cathartic for us al, but the most likely outcome is that the Trust would sell all its shares as opposed to keeping a stake in the club under the terms of the proposed deal. I don't understand the details of the rest so won't pretend to, there's plenty if others doing that.
I haven't decided how to vote yet but honestly I don't give a f*ck about Jenkins. Fully appreciate why others do and I did feel the same way myself. But whether I'd vote for a legal action that would feel good if won, could cost a fortune if lost, is likely to result in the Trust having no stake in the club and will have no impact on Jenkins' position I don't know.
And if course any court case would be against the buyers, not the sellers. At least as I understand it. [Post edited 1 Jul 2017 16:58]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:51 - Jul 1 with 1930 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:13 - Jul 1 by exiledclaseboy |
It'll be a civil action, guilt or innocence won't be an issue in any meaningful criminal sense unless the police are involved. |
Yes, mine is absolutely a vote for legal action and it has naff all to do with Jenkins. He genuinely is an irrelevance compared to what we are facing. We can put a crown on him and give give him a lifetime achievement award for all I care, as long as in return we get what is rightfully the Trusts in order to continue the goal of one day being majority shareholders in Swansea City.. ie £20m-£25m.
The only way we get the above is by legal action. Why anybody would want to settle for £5m and continue having the mouse voice we have is beyond me. Neither the money nor the minuscule voice is worth anything of note as neither helps us achieve the long term goals.
It's clear the Trust believe they have far more voice than they actually do, which is easy to be hoodwinked into thinking that when in the thick of it. Those on the outside often have the clearer view. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:00 - Jul 1 with 1893 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
I'll be voting for legal action. Their offer should have been for the full amount the shares were worth when they purchased the club. Anything less is The Trust conceding ground. £5m plus the not guaranteed additional amounts is pretty much useless. It might fund some nice but largely irrelevant community projects in the future. It wont be enough to buy the club back. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:01 - Jul 1 with 1825 views | DafyddHuw |
I'm voting to go to court. Not because of Jenkins and co - that's just a galling irrelevance.
For me, it's a piss-poor offer. The Yanks will be bricking going to couirt and will grant a few nore concessions.
It won't get that far though. The Trust board will get their way. We'll accept the offer. I pinned my hopes in the Trust standing up for what is right but I see now that there's nobody left to fight on my behalf. Even after we've spunked £30K and been told we've got a strong case.
I'm so disillusioned.
Signed
A disenfranchised customer |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:27 - Jul 1 with 1784 views | Whiterockin |
We should be in it for the long game. Take them to court for full payment for all the shares.
I hate HJ as much as others but there is very little we can do about him either way. If he cocks up the Americans will get rid of him anyway (their stake in the club will be much higher and more to risk). If he fails and the club gets relegated the Americans will want out and the share value will be lower. The trust buys a larger share in the club with Jenkins and the Americans gone. If the club goes from strength to strength we have a successful club and we will all be happy. In the background the trust have the financial clout if things ever do go wrong in the future. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:08 - Jul 1 with 1731 views | BillyChong |
Didn't Dineen once tell us not to go gentle? Legal action it is. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:28 - Jul 1 with 1691 views | 3swan |
Mulling over the current 2 situations.
If the offer is accepted.
Things carry on much as today with the Trust having approx £6m plus potential for nearly double in reserve.
Not ideal as HJ and the others still have an impact within the club. The Trust has to hope that the owners will keep involving them in the running and decision making.
What happens if a legal route is taken to me is not so clear.
The Trust will have approx £21m in reserve but any impact within the club will end.
I take it at that point the Trust and ultimately the fans have no recognised route into the club. The Trust basically becomes a supporters club?
Current membership is I think around 1,800. How many will renew when part ownership has gone?
What will be the remit for the Trust if membership does drop dramatically?
Will the current board want to keep going, without the owners having need to keep ongoing contact? If not who will take over? Will the decision of what to do with £25m rely on a few people?
If the owners decide to sell in maybe 2-3 years that £25m won’t be enough without a buying partnership, and that’s if any prospective buyer wants a joint share buy out.
If it’s longer will they sell to the Trust, or only to some other outside group.
All in the future, so anything can happen or change, but to me it does look like a legal win ends up with no fans involvement for many a year, and only a drop in to the lower divisions would that £25m come into play. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
