| Trust Shares 00:07 - Nov 23 with 7365 views | Taliesin |
There's been much talk about selling the trust shares but the question is raised about who would buy them because they are effectively useless.
Is there any reason the shares cannot be sold to trust members (or indeed the wider fanbase) Split up into packages which many could find affordable - the trust gets its rainy day fund whilst the shares remain in the hands of the supporters.
Is there a reason the Trust wouldn't, couldn't or shouldn't take this approach? |  | | |  |
| Trust Shares on 14:01 - Nov 23 with 1890 views | 3swan |
So depending what anyone wants to believe the Americans are playing a game, the sellers are playing a game, the Trust are playing a game.
Now if there is a way of a ‘watertight case’ then ‘fans’ should not be playing any games but make it happen. |  | | |
| Trust Shares on 14:03 - Nov 23 with 1886 views | NeathJack |
| Trust Shares on 13:57 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
Dail Little has been the Trust's legal since maybe 2006 and a Trust board member for some time, and is seemilngly solely responsible for the Trust's legal strategy and moves.
Who along with other legal advisors no doubt nominated by Little the being paid unknown sums by the Trust, that have not been disclosed as part of this supposedly exhaustive Cozy conflict of interest witchhunt. |
I think you'll find all legal fees and costs are shown in the annual accounts.
Sorry to disappoint. |  | | |
| Trust Shares on 14:04 - Nov 23 with 1881 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Shares on 13:57 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
Dail Little has been the Trust's legal since maybe 2006 and a Trust board member for some time, and is seemilngly solely responsible for the Trust's legal strategy and moves.
Who along with other legal advisors no doubt nominated by Little the being paid unknown sums by the Trust, that have not been disclosed as part of this supposedly exhaustive Cozy conflict of interest witchhunt. |
He's their legal advisor, who, amongst other things is a die hard Swans fan (TheResurrection, 2016).
Hardly likely to shaft his own club, given that he'd lose all of his mates if he did so. What would you rather do? Appoint someone else who (a) would cost more and (b) wouldn't have the emotional connection with the club? |  |
| |
| Trust Shares on 14:07 - Nov 23 with 1863 views | Shaky |
| Trust Shares on 14:03 - Nov 23 by NeathJack |
I think you'll find all legal fees and costs are shown in the annual accounts.
Sorry to disappoint. |
Well thanks for letting us know clearly where you stand on the question of PS apologists for "Trust" deception.
Such further clarification always welcome. |  |
| |
| Trust Shares on 14:08 - Nov 23 with 1852 views | NeathJack |
| Trust Shares on 14:07 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
Well thanks for letting us know clearly where you stand on the question of PS apologists for "Trust" deception.
Such further clarification always welcome. |
You're welcome. | | | |
| Trust Shares on 14:15 - Nov 23 with 1825 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Shares on 14:07 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
Well thanks for letting us know clearly where you stand on the question of PS apologists for "Trust" deception.
Such further clarification always welcome. |
Genuine question, which isn't beyond the realms of possibility but I'll ask it. Why would a senior partner at a firm in Russell Square risk his reputation and career by taking this work on? | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 14:22 - Nov 23 with 1806 views | monmouth |
| Trust Shares on 14:04 - Nov 23 by waynekerr55 |
He's their legal advisor, who, amongst other things is a die hard Swans fan (TheResurrection, 2016).
Hardly likely to shaft his own club, given that he'd lose all of his mates if he did so. What would you rather do? Appoint someone else who (a) would cost more and (b) wouldn't have the emotional connection with the club? |
Yes, that's the disadvantage of knowing nothing about our past and that lots of unpaid work was done when the Trust didn't have a pot to piss in.
It doesn't invalidate Shaky queries about competence which I don't know the answer to.
I would imagine mind that that's why we are paying for a barrister's advice and other specialists (presumably DL's 'associates'?) who I'd say it would be fair to assume know more than even Shaky's consummate random googling can dig up.
Of course, I accept there can be no greater expertise than an anonymous message board contributor called Shaky mind. I mean, why would anyone not?
He is, however, asking some good questions. |  |
| |
| Trust Shares on 14:25 - Nov 23 with 1792 views | Shaky |
| Trust Shares on 14:15 - Nov 23 by waynekerr55 |
Genuine question, which isn't beyond the realms of possibility but I'll ask it. Why would a senior partner at a firm in Russell Square risk his reputation and career by taking this work on? |
I don't know what you're talking about.
The only thing I can tell you is that I once had some clients with offices near the Brunswick Centre, who for some reason liked to go to the Carvery in the Hotel Russell for lunch.
That was very old fashioned even then, but perfectly adequate. That's all I know I'm afraid, except I sometimes used to go to the SOAS bar aftwards if I got really trousered; that was always a hoot. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Shares on 14:25 - Nov 23 with 1792 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Shares on 14:22 - Nov 23 by monmouth |
Yes, that's the disadvantage of knowing nothing about our past and that lots of unpaid work was done when the Trust didn't have a pot to piss in.
It doesn't invalidate Shaky queries about competence which I don't know the answer to.
I would imagine mind that that's why we are paying for a barrister's advice and other specialists (presumably DL's 'associates'?) who I'd say it would be fair to assume know more than even Shaky's consummate random googling can dig up.
Of course, I accept there can be no greater expertise than an anonymous message board contributor called Shaky mind. I mean, why would anyone not?
He is, however, asking some good questions. |
I don't doubt that, see my previous posts. | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 14:34 - Nov 23 with 1775 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Shares on 14:25 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
I don't know what you're talking about.
The only thing I can tell you is that I once had some clients with offices near the Brunswick Centre, who for some reason liked to go to the Carvery in the Hotel Russell for lunch.
That was very old fashioned even then, but perfectly adequate. That's all I know I'm afraid, except I sometimes used to go to the SOAS bar aftwards if I got really trousered; that was always a hoot. |
OK, I'll reword it.
Why would Mr Little risk his career by being negligent in the public eye, when acting for a significant shareholder of a Premier League club?
Don't you think he has bigger fish to fry, rather than trousering few quid on the side? | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 14:35 - Nov 23 with 1773 views | Shaky |
Spot the difference:
- Massive fan of the club
- Long history of doing services at a discount.
- Recently paid not inconsiderable sums of money
Who dat? Cozy or Little?
I was personally of the opinion that Cozy's renumeration was reaonable and distinctly recall arguing on this very board that the SD should be a paid position.
The point is the lying and deception.
And now the Trust does it again immediately after the last scandal. This is psycopath tendency behaviour, ladies and germs. And the majority of you just lie down and roll over like sheep.
It's a fascinating social phenomenon, in my view. | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 14:37 - Nov 23 with 1772 views | Shaky |
| Trust Shares on 14:34 - Nov 23 by waynekerr55 |
OK, I'll reword it.
Why would Mr Little risk his career by being negligent in the public eye, when acting for a significant shareholder of a Premier League club?
Don't you think he has bigger fish to fry, rather than trousering few quid on the side? |
This is what is known as historicism. You are trying to explain the present situation from the perspective of what may or may not have happened in the past.
I am really not interested in that at all. The only thing I care about is results. And they have spectacularly failed to materialise throughout this process. | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 14:39 - Nov 23 with 1765 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Shares on 14:37 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
This is what is known as historicism. You are trying to explain the present situation from the perspective of what may or may not have happened in the past.
I am really not interested in that at all. The only thing I care about is results. And they have spectacularly failed to materialise throughout this process. |
And your evidence for this is?
Do you have unequivocal facts to prove this assertion? | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 14:39 - Nov 23 with 1762 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Shares on 14:35 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
Spot the difference:
- Massive fan of the club
- Long history of doing services at a discount.
- Recently paid not inconsiderable sums of money
Who dat? Cozy or Little?
I was personally of the opinion that Cozy's renumeration was reaonable and distinctly recall arguing on this very board that the SD should be a paid position.
The point is the lying and deception.
And now the Trust does it again immediately after the last scandal. This is psycopath tendency behaviour, ladies and germs. And the majority of you just lie down and roll over like sheep.
It's a fascinating social phenomenon, in my view. |
Have the trust lied about Little's payments? | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 14:41 - Nov 23 with 1758 views | Shaky |
| Trust Shares on 14:39 - Nov 23 by waynekerr55 |
And your evidence for this is?
Do you have unequivocal facts to prove this assertion? |
What that the "Trust's" strategy has been a spectacular failure?
Look around you. | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 14:43 - Nov 23 with 1474 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Shares on 14:41 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
What that the "Trust's" strategy has been a spectacular failure?
Look around you. |
It hasn't failed yet, it may.
I agree that certain things could and should have been done differently, however there isn't a lot that can be done. I believe the term for what happened was a 'creeping takeover', which you can get away with as a Ltd company but not a PLC. | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 14:52 - Nov 23 with 1461 views | Shaky |
| Trust Shares on 14:43 - Nov 23 by waynekerr55 |
It hasn't failed yet, it may.
I agree that certain things could and should have been done differently, however there isn't a lot that can be done. I believe the term for what happened was a 'creeping takeover', which you can get away with as a Ltd company but not a PLC. |
Well you're wrong about that, and I'll add for nothing that neither you nor Smelly know what PLC means in that that context, or more precisely what it doesn't mean.
Gotta go. | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 14:59 - Nov 23 with 1452 views | Darran |
| Trust Shares on 14:00 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
I have answered it enough times, as you know well, Desperate.
You're just going round in circles like your mate "Honest" Phil. |
So just answer it for clarification.
Why do you care so much? |  |
| |
| Trust Shares on 15:00 - Nov 23 with 1451 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Shares on 14:52 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
Well you're wrong about that, and I'll add for nothing that neither you nor Smelly know what PLC means in that that context, or more precisely what it doesn't mean.
Gotta go. |
I've never claimed that I do, but a good pal of mine who worked at the investor forum does. Let me guess, he's wrong too?
PS - why do you call Uxy Smelly? [Post edited 23 Nov 2016 15:01]
| |
| |
| Trust Shares on 15:03 - Nov 23 with 1441 views | Darran |
Oh and here's a PM I had earlier and I doubt it's the only person that thinks you're getting info from somewhere.
 | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 15:27 - Nov 23 with 1404 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust Shares on 15:00 - Nov 23 by waynekerr55 |
I've never claimed that I do, but a good pal of mine who worked at the investor forum does. Let me guess, he's wrong too?
PS - why do you call Uxy Smelly? [Post edited 23 Nov 2016 15:01]
|
Because she's 8. On the flip side, at least we now know who the mysterious Shaky is.. Haven't been called that since a certain Sarah in junior school.
Still, interesting to see that Shaky thinks that either a drag along case or UP is a mere formality. If she could outline the details I'll make sure our barrister is aware. |  |
| |
| Trust Shares on 15:45 - Nov 23 with 1365 views | monmouth |
| Trust Shares on 15:27 - Nov 23 by Uxbridge |
Because she's 8. On the flip side, at least we now know who the mysterious Shaky is.. Haven't been called that since a certain Sarah in junior school.
Still, interesting to see that Shaky thinks that either a drag along case or UP is a mere formality. If she could outline the details I'll make sure our barrister is aware. |
1) I think I knew her. Sarah Bailey?
2) Out of interest do you smell? Brut body spray mun. Splash it all over. I swear by it.
3) Do the trust have any clarity about when they will decide to really go to war (i.e. one, or a set of trigger events) and what 'war' looks like, or 4) when they will get a definitive legal opinion on what actions would, or have, opened the door to potential legal remedy? | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 15:54 - Nov 23 with 1346 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust Shares on 15:45 - Nov 23 by monmouth |
1) I think I knew her. Sarah Bailey?
2) Out of interest do you smell? Brut body spray mun. Splash it all over. I swear by it.
3) Do the trust have any clarity about when they will decide to really go to war (i.e. one, or a set of trigger events) and what 'war' looks like, or 4) when they will get a definitive legal opinion on what actions would, or have, opened the door to potential legal remedy? |
1) Afraid I don't know here. Must be a Sarah thing.
2) Brut? It's not the 80's man. Right guard, as you didn't ask.
3) I'm not going to outline those on here obviously, but in a loose sense I would say yes. We're not in very predictable times though.
4) That's in progress | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 15:57 - Nov 23 with 1340 views | monmouth |
| Trust Shares on 15:54 - Nov 23 by Uxbridge |
1) Afraid I don't know here. Must be a Sarah thing.
2) Brut? It's not the 80's man. Right guard, as you didn't ask.
3) I'm not going to outline those on here obviously, but in a loose sense I would say yes. We're not in very predictable times though.
4) That's in progress |
I knew a few other Sarah's too. Sarah Freud and Sarah Buffett being two. | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 16:00 - Nov 23 with 1334 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust Shares on 15:57 - Nov 23 by monmouth |
I knew a few other Sarah's too. Sarah Freud and Sarah Buffett being two. |
No. We could be here all day at this rate  | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
