| Trust Update... 20:34 - May 18 with 31160 views | marchamjack |
CONFIDENTIAL
This update is being sent to you as a registered member of Swansea City Supporters’ Society Limited, which is also known as the ‘Swansea City Supporters’ Trust’ (‘Trust’). If you are not a member of the Trust, please do not read it. If you are a member, please do not share it or pass it on to others. On the advice of our lawyers, we need to state that nothing in this update is, or is intended as, a waiver of legal professional privilege or any other type of privilege.
In January 2018 the majority owners of Swansea City decided to ‘put on hold’ indefinitely the ongoing discussions on the previously proposed deal relating to the part sale of the Trust’s shareholding in Swansea City Football 2002 Limited, which (through another company) owns the Football Club. With no indication as to whether the deal could be resurrected in the future, the Trust engaged further specialist legal advice in order to determine the next steps that could be taken to best protect the interests of the Trust and, therefore, our members. It will be recalled that we have previously reported that initial advice from Queen’s Counsel (a senior lawyer) was taken last year.
As a result, the Trust and our legal advisers have carried out a comprehensive review of the circumstances surrounding the 2016 sale of a controlling interest in the Club and the impact of these events on the Trust and our shareholding. This involved going back to 2001/2002, when the Club was saved from bankruptcy by the Trust and others, and establishing the relevant factual history and developments from then until the present day. Many people and sources had to be consulted to achieve this and the exercise has only been completed within the last few days.
Our lawyers have today sent (by electronic means or post) to the Club and its shareholders a detailed letter, setting out a number of legal claims on the part of the Trust, including complaints as to the very negative impact the sale and related matters have had on the Trust’s position as a shareholder. The letter and its schedules extend to some 60 pages.
On advice from our lawyers, and in accordance with Court guidelines, the Trust has offered to enter into a formal ‘mediation’ process with the majority owners and others, in order to seek to resolve these claims and complaints. The aim is to seek a provisional agreement to settle past differences, with a view to moving ahead together with the task of rebuilding the Club and returning it to top level football. Any such provisional agreement would be put to members for approval, by way of a consultation.
Mediation is a voluntary and confidential process in which relevant parties seek to resolve disputes with the assistance of a trained independent and impartial mediator. The mediator cannot impose a solution, but uses his or her skills to bring the parties together. The letter that has been sent proposes that mediation takes place in early July, to allow time for responses to be provided to the letter. While it is a voluntary process, mediation is increasingly being seen by courts as a necessary first step before any formal court proceedings are taken and costs sanctions can be applied for unreasonably failing to mediate. The Trust is duty bound to explore all available legal avenues to protect the interests of the Trust and our members. If mediation were refused or the process proved unsuccessful, and if Trust members support such action, future court proceedings are possible.
If a potential resolution is achieved via the mediation process, it will be set out in a binding, written settlement agreement. However, we can assure our members that any agreement will not be finalised unless it is approved by Trust members as part of a formal consultation exercise.
Members should be aware, however, that if the offer of formal mediation is accepted, that it is a confidential process. This means that the Trust Board will be limited in what we are able to report during the mediation process, unless or until a provisional agreement is reached (or alternative options are identified) on which members can be consulted.
We will update members as soon as we are able to provide further information.
Best wishes
The Swans Trust Team
|  |
| Oh,..Dave, what's occuring? |
| |  |
| Trust Update... on 21:57 - May 19 with 2385 views | Jackfath |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 21:52 - May 19 by cymrojack |
[Post edited 10 Jun 2021 12:01]
|
Which member(s) of the Trust board has commented on this thread? |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 22:06 - May 19 with 2363 views | Phil_S |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 21:52 - May 19 by cymrojack |
[Post edited 10 Jun 2021 12:01]
|
I will say now with complete belief that if it was felt that the thread should be removed someone from the trust would have contacted me to remove it
The fact that tbey haven’t says that it’s good to stay |  | | |
| Trust Update... on 22:07 - May 19 with 2357 views | Wingstandwood |
| Trust Update... on 21:15 - May 19 by Shaky |
On the face of it the decision to pull out of the last settlement seems completely irrational since it was an extremely good deal for them.
Hard to see any other interpretation than they were very cocksure the Trust could not get their act together. And perhaps they were right! |
Yeah agree with all that, I think the Yanks must of thought that the Trust is a dog that would volunteer to lie down to be kicked. and kicked. and kicked over and over again.
And yeah to think the Yanks had just got away with absolute murder i.e. getting a completely one sided deal in their favour but yet? They had zero gratitude or appreciation of the (in their favour) one sided magnitude of it all. It's surreal to the extreme IMO. |  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:11 - May 19 with 2345 views | cymrojack |
| Trust Update... on 21:57 - May 19 by Jackfath |
Which member(s) of the Trust board has commented on this thread? |
[Post edited 10 Jun 2021 12:02]
|  |
| Gwynedd & Swansea - Veteran of Morriston Boys Club |
| |
| Trust Update... on 22:13 - May 19 with 2333 views | Shaky |
| Trust Update... on 21:49 - May 19 by majorraglan |
Appreciate it’s not a divorce, but the principle is to try and resolve your differences before embarking on costly litigation.
You maybe right on the lack of hard questions, I would hope though that there are people connected with the Trust who can provide that guidance, but maybe there isn’t. Anyway, we will have to see what happens. |
"the principle is to try and resolve your differences before embarking on costly litigation"
. . . thought negotiation. Exactly.
But as i said this morning, what are the parameters of those negotiations? What are the objectives of the Trust?
We have no fcuking clue, and after a 3 month delay in providing an update on the "share sale" we can now look forward to at least a few more months of no information whatsoever about what is gong on, assuming Kaplan doesn't use delaying tactics.
As i said absent a genuine requirement to offer mediation, this is in my view very disappointing. And with the Trust board elections coming up in a matter of weeks frankly inexplicable, as we are approach the 2 year anniversary of the Swansea City buyout, with the Trust so far basically having achieved nothing. |  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:15 - May 19 with 2318 views | cymrojack |
| Trust Update... on 22:06 - May 19 by Phil_S |
I will say now with complete belief that if it was felt that the thread should be removed someone from the trust would have contacted me to remove it
The fact that tbey haven’t says that it’s good to stay |
[Post edited 10 Jun 2021 12:00]
| |
| Gwynedd & Swansea - Veteran of Morriston Boys Club |
| |
| Trust Update... on 22:35 - May 19 with 2267 views | longlostjack |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 21:52 - May 19 by cymrojack |
[Post edited 10 Jun 2021 12:01]
|
Am I missing something? How can it be bloody confidential if it was sent out to over a thousand members by email? Whoever you are you need to grow a pair. |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 02:32 - May 20 with 2136 views | wobbly |
| Trust Update... on 20:48 - May 19 by Shaky |
I have done a little further research on all this, and i can find no reference that mediation should be offered "in accordance with Court guidelines". Happy to be corrected on that if somebody has a reference.
What I have found is increasing reference to the use of mediation, following a judgement in 2010 and based on EU guidelines.
The key point seems to be that if a party refuses to enter into mediation, even if they win the subsequent case costs can be awarded against them.
No doubt the Trust is naturally cautious, but that situation certainly does not apply at present and as such there seems to have been no need to offer mediation.
Furthermore, given the serious negative financial implications of refusing to enter into mediation, I don't see how Kaplan & Co can decline.
So it looks like whether by accident or design the Trust have in effect forced a new round of negotiations.
How will that go?
We'll have no idea cos it is more hush-hush, double-secret stuff, not to be revealed until the 60 pager has been hashed out.
Who's going to give me odds it will be another piss-poor settlement agreement? |
Not mediation specifically, but a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution to litigation should be pursued before and indeed even after litigation is started.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_cond
The Practice Direction on Pre-Action conduct are the rules you are looking for. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Update... on 08:43 - May 20 with 1991 views | Shaky |
Thanks. These do in fact appear to be the right guidelines, given paragraph 18 makes no mention of any other rules for anything remotely resembling company law.
Have you read them though?
Because they make no reference whatsoever to any obligation to engage or offer to engage in any ADR process including mediation. None.
Paragraph 8 appears to be the key:
"Litigation should be a last resort. . . .the parties should consider whether negotiation or some other form of ADR might enable them to settle their dispute without commencing proceedings.
Without doubt close to a year of direct negotiations followed by an agreement on a settlement ratified by the Trust's membership in a major ballot, the other party unilaterally reneged on more than satisfies that requirement.
In other words this bit of the Trust email is factually incorrect: "On advice from our lawyers, and in accordance with Court guidelines, the Trust has offered to enter into a formal ‘mediation’ process"
In this respect the other point worth mentioning is paragraph 6 sub-clause a) which sets out other requirements before moving to trial:
"the claimant writing to the defendant with **concise** details of the claim. The letter should include the basis on which the claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants from the defendant"
That'll be the 60 pager then! Fcuk me, we're off to a good start here!
Sub-clause b) goes on to stipulate "the defendant responding [to the 60 pager] within a reasonable time - 14 days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one."
Is a 60 page letter complex? If it is, and the wording is certainly vague, Kaplan appears to have ample scope to delay a response until the autumn.
Like I said, very disappointing. | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 09:09 - May 20 with 1927 views | Phil_S |
| Trust Update... on 08:43 - May 20 by Shaky |
Thanks. These do in fact appear to be the right guidelines, given paragraph 18 makes no mention of any other rules for anything remotely resembling company law.
Have you read them though?
Because they make no reference whatsoever to any obligation to engage or offer to engage in any ADR process including mediation. None.
Paragraph 8 appears to be the key:
"Litigation should be a last resort. . . .the parties should consider whether negotiation or some other form of ADR might enable them to settle their dispute without commencing proceedings.
Without doubt close to a year of direct negotiations followed by an agreement on a settlement ratified by the Trust's membership in a major ballot, the other party unilaterally reneged on more than satisfies that requirement.
In other words this bit of the Trust email is factually incorrect: "On advice from our lawyers, and in accordance with Court guidelines, the Trust has offered to enter into a formal ‘mediation’ process"
In this respect the other point worth mentioning is paragraph 6 sub-clause a) which sets out other requirements before moving to trial:
"the claimant writing to the defendant with **concise** details of the claim. The letter should include the basis on which the claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants from the defendant"
That'll be the 60 pager then! Fcuk me, we're off to a good start here!
Sub-clause b) goes on to stipulate "the defendant responding [to the 60 pager] within a reasonable time - 14 days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one."
Is a 60 page letter complex? If it is, and the wording is certainly vague, Kaplan appears to have ample scope to delay a response until the autumn.
Like I said, very disappointing. |
Given a professional mediator is involved I think it’s probably likely that they will take more notice of his viewpoint and advice than yours? It’s just a hunch like
Oh and by the way I’ve not been briefed nor have I seen the 60 pages so I have no idea what font it is written in 😂 | | | |
| Trust Update... on 09:51 - May 20 with 1861 views | swancity |
Further procrastination from the Trust. Anything other than deal with and actually confront the big issues. |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Trust Update... on 09:54 - May 20 with 1856 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Update... on 09:51 - May 20 by swancity |
Further procrastination from the Trust. Anything other than deal with and actually confront the big issues. |
I would think (hope) that an expensive QC would have suggested mediation as the last resort before court action. The wheels of legal action turn slower than Mr Creosote |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 09:54 - May 20 with 1855 views | Loyal |
| Trust Update... on 20:47 - May 18 by marchamjack |
So angry reading that 1st para.
Our Trust
The fans Trust
Could not look to alienate themselves more from the wider Swans fansbase, and us fckn Members indeed, by such pompous, self-aggrandising nonsense...don't share it (ssshhh keep it secret) and don't read it if you're not a Member.
Fuming
Can't believe I'm a fully paid up Member of such an insular, inwards looking body |
Your best post ever, I'll go further, they are now as equally responsible for our demise as the yanks and conkus norvegicus. Blindly being too scared to speak, too slow to act, taking the wrong course of action to protect their own status, sneaking off to the dirdctors box for hospitality and smiling as we fall out of the premier league.
They have failed the fans, there is no trust, there is no honour, and when it was time to be strong and act they wilted and cowered innthe corner.
You are not a trust, you are a club, a self serving club for paid up members.
You protect nothing except yourselves, hang your heads in shame.
It's all too late and its all too weak. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Trust Update... on 09:57 - May 20 with 1845 views | peenemunde |
| Trust Update... on 09:09 - May 20 by Phil_S |
Given a professional mediator is involved I think it’s probably likely that they will take more notice of his viewpoint and advice than yours? It’s just a hunch like
Oh and by the way I’ve not been briefed nor have I seen the 60 pages so I have no idea what font it is written in 😂 |
Given that this so called meditation is confidential, what the mediator thinks or says is irrelevant, if the majority shareholders choose to pay lip service to the whole event. |  | | |
| Trust Update... on 09:57 - May 20 with 1846 views | AguycalledJack |
| Trust Update... on 21:31 - May 19 by Shaky |
This is not a divorce case though.
As i see it the merits of the case don't hinge on establishing the facts but rather on the interpretation of points of law.
Under the circumstances did jenkins' et al owe a duty of care to the Trust to protect their interests as shareholders?
And that is something for a judge to decide.
Unless there actually is a requirement to submit to mediation I have not found, I think this move is a mistake.
But one I can easily imagine has occurred because nobody was probably asking hard questions of the lawyers allowing them to run amok. |
mediation is encouraged by the courts. If it’s not undertaken now it will undoubtedly be ordered at a later stage should proceedings be issued. The courts have a duty to further what is termed the overriding objective. Take a look at CPR 1.2 - 1.4 on google.
The costs of mediation are usually born by the parties. There will usually be a mediation agreement entered into which provides for this. However, this is not always the case. | | | |
| Trust Update... on 10:02 - May 20 with 1829 views | Loyal |
| Trust Update... on 09:57 - May 20 by AguycalledJack |
mediation is encouraged by the courts. If it’s not undertaken now it will undoubtedly be ordered at a later stage should proceedings be issued. The courts have a duty to further what is termed the overriding objective. Take a look at CPR 1.2 - 1.4 on google.
The costs of mediation are usually born by the parties. There will usually be a mediation agreement entered into which provides for this. However, this is not always the case. |
I still think if its true ... the sale and the way it was cartied out from the information on social media its a criminal action, cant be anything else. And also from the apparent deliberate actions of exclusion of the trust, and the comments made by the americans in January - The only mediation available should be a plea bargain to stay out of the pokey. | |
| 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 |
| |
| Trust Update... on 10:03 - May 20 with 1827 views | wobbly |
| Trust Update... on 09:51 - May 20 by swancity |
Further procrastination from the Trust. Anything other than deal with and actually confront the big issues. |
I don’t think so. I think Shaky might not be familiar with the weight that the courts apply to the practice directions, which are annexed to the Civil Procedure Rules. The negotiations with the majority shareholders to date don’t really qualify as ADR. The lawyers are now following the process. Mediation is the obvious first step.
Had the vote been for ‘legal action’ last year, it’s highly likely that the first step would have been mediation anyway, as there was no real mechanism in place for arbitration.
So, it looks more like the trust are doing what everyone on here wanted, and are getting on with the job of litigating. Good. This is just the first step.
If we get what we want through mediation, then excellent. Saved a lot of time, cost and heartache. If we don’t, nothing is binding and we move on to court.
The one thing I’m interested in is who we are in mediation with. Is it the club and it’s shareholders, as suggested in the mail, or does it include the former shareholders as well? Whilst Morgan and Jenkins are still shareholders, so presumably in the mix, I would hope and like to see a few more screws turned on some of the total sellouts like JVZ and Dineen for their despicable behaviour too.
I wonder if the trust can tell us in a later communication whether the actions they have taken to protect member interests include the former shareholders too? [Post edited 20 May 2018 10:06]
| | | |
| Trust Update... on 10:09 - May 20 with 1804 views | AguycalledJack |
| Trust Update... on 10:02 - May 20 by Loyal |
I still think if its true ... the sale and the way it was cartied out from the information on social media its a criminal action, cant be anything else. And also from the apparent deliberate actions of exclusion of the trust, and the comments made by the americans in January - The only mediation available should be a plea bargain to stay out of the pokey. |
That could be the ultimate outcome once the civil proceedings have been concluded.
However, I would imagine that there would have to be in the first instance a complaint to the police/ relevant authorities by the trust or a member of the trust before there was an investigation into alleged criminal actions.
[Post edited 20 May 2018 10:17]
| | | |
| Trust Update... on 10:18 - May 20 with 1774 views | peenemunde |
| Trust Update... on 10:02 - May 20 by Loyal |
I still think if its true ... the sale and the way it was cartied out from the information on social media its a criminal action, cant be anything else. And also from the apparent deliberate actions of exclusion of the trust, and the comments made by the americans in January - The only mediation available should be a plea bargain to stay out of the pokey. |
Go to the police and report a crime, if you think ones been committed. | | | |
| Trust Update... on 10:20 - May 20 with 1761 views | Shaky |
| Trust Update... on 10:03 - May 20 by wobbly |
I don’t think so. I think Shaky might not be familiar with the weight that the courts apply to the practice directions, which are annexed to the Civil Procedure Rules. The negotiations with the majority shareholders to date don’t really qualify as ADR. The lawyers are now following the process. Mediation is the obvious first step.
Had the vote been for ‘legal action’ last year, it’s highly likely that the first step would have been mediation anyway, as there was no real mechanism in place for arbitration.
So, it looks more like the trust are doing what everyone on here wanted, and are getting on with the job of litigating. Good. This is just the first step.
If we get what we want through mediation, then excellent. Saved a lot of time, cost and heartache. If we don’t, nothing is binding and we move on to court.
The one thing I’m interested in is who we are in mediation with. Is it the club and it’s shareholders, as suggested in the mail, or does it include the former shareholders as well? Whilst Morgan and Jenkins are still shareholders, so presumably in the mix, I would hope and like to see a few more screws turned on some of the total sellouts like JVZ and Dineen for their despicable behaviour too.
I wonder if the trust can tell us in a later communication whether the actions they have taken to protect member interests include the former shareholders too? [Post edited 20 May 2018 10:06]
|
" I think Shaky might not be familiar with the weight that the courts apply to the practice directions, which are annexed to the Civil Procedure Rules. "
What are you talking about?
You provided the link and I read it.
Nowhere does it say that ADR is mandatory. Nowhere.
The requirements were clearly set out in clause 8 as I mentioned.
Negotiation or ADR. There has been plenty of negotiation, more than ample.
Unless you can point me to something more compelling this is bullshit.
Edit -- correction. the guideline don;t even say Negotiation or ADR but rather Negotiation or ADR should be considered.
What a load of w@ank this has all turned out to be. [Post edited 20 May 2018 10:29]
| |
| |
| Trust Update... on 10:25 - May 20 with 1749 views | Shaky |
| Trust Update... on 09:09 - May 20 by Phil_S |
Given a professional mediator is involved I think it’s probably likely that they will take more notice of his viewpoint and advice than yours? It’s just a hunch like
Oh and by the way I’ve not been briefed nor have I seen the 60 pages so I have no idea what font it is written in 😂 |
Really? A professional mediator?
Who has misrepresented the legal requirements for mediation, and seemingly contravened the basic rules required when instigating proceeding?
Sounds more like the kind of cock-up artist you normally bring to the table.
What's his name, or is that double secret too? | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 10:32 - May 20 with 1732 views | AguycalledJack |
| Trust Update... on 10:25 - May 20 by Shaky |
Really? A professional mediator?
Who has misrepresented the legal requirements for mediation, and seemingly contravened the basic rules required when instigating proceeding?
Sounds more like the kind of cock-up artist you normally bring to the table.
What's his name, or is that double secret too? |
A mediator is agreed between the parties.
They will not have had any involvement as yet. They are impartial. | | | |
| Trust Update... on 10:33 - May 20 with 1728 views | Shaky |
| Trust Update... on 10:32 - May 20 by AguycalledJack |
A mediator is agreed between the parties.
They will not have had any involvement as yet. They are impartial. |
Would you mind introducing yourself?
Thanks so much | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 10:37 - May 20 with 1706 views | AguycalledJack |
| Trust Update... on 10:33 - May 20 by Shaky |
Would you mind introducing yourself?
Thanks so much |
What you want to know? | | | |
| Trust Update... on 10:40 - May 20 with 1699 views | Shaky |
| Trust Update... on 09:54 - May 20 by Loyal |
Your best post ever, I'll go further, they are now as equally responsible for our demise as the yanks and conkus norvegicus. Blindly being too scared to speak, too slow to act, taking the wrong course of action to protect their own status, sneaking off to the dirdctors box for hospitality and smiling as we fall out of the premier league.
They have failed the fans, there is no trust, there is no honour, and when it was time to be strong and act they wilted and cowered innthe corner.
You are not a trust, you are a club, a self serving club for paid up members.
You protect nothing except yourselves, hang your heads in shame.
It's all too late and its all too weak. |
This raises a critical point.
The ordinary fans can not trust either Kaplan & Co or the Trust.
Nor has the Trust seemingly taken any consideration of the widespread distrust whatsoever as they have entered into a totally opaque process.
It is a stunning lapse of judgement. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
