| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 140506 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 10:00 - Jul 2 with 1865 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:57 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
Well then why doesn't that statement stand in response to them saying we rejected their offer?
For some reason you seem to believe that what they say has more clout than you?
PR really is a simple game if you are in the right. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 9:58]
|
I would respectfully beg to differ based on the coverage given by Wathan et al to the takeover.
It's not always about being right, sometimes it's about having enough journalists willing to print your side of the story. They have more to lose by falling out with the Club than they do by falling out with the Trust. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:04 - Jul 2 with 1856 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:00 - Jul 2 by MattG |
I would respectfully beg to differ based on the coverage given by Wathan et al to the takeover.
It's not always about being right, sometimes it's about having enough journalists willing to print your side of the story. They have more to lose by falling out with the Club than they do by falling out with the Trust. |
Then win your own PR battle.
You have twitter, you have a website, the chairman also owns this site.
Whom are you concerned about losing a PR battle with? The people that matter are the ones you have direct contact with - or at least the potential to reach if used properly.... which rarely has been thus far admittedly. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 10:09]
|  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:11 - Jul 2 with 1833 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:04 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
Then win your own PR battle.
You have twitter, you have a website, the chairman also owns this site.
Whom are you concerned about losing a PR battle with? The people that matter are the ones you have direct contact with - or at least the potential to reach if used properly.... which rarely has been thus far admittedly. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 10:09]
|
Are you suggesting the PR battle needs to be with our own members? If so then I would agree that our communication needs to improve and steps are being taken to address that.
I assumed we were talking about a wider PR battle, hence my reference to Wathan and his ilk. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:14 - Jul 2 with 1829 views | Neath_Jack |
When does the the current trust membership run out? I was a member last season, so when does that expire please? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:18 - Jul 2 with 1812 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:14 - Jul 2 by Neath_Jack |
When does the the current trust membership run out? I was a member last season, so when does that expire please? |
Renewals are 1st August. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:19 - Jul 2 with 1804 views | Neath_Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:18 - Jul 2 by MattG |
Renewals are 1st August. |
Thank you, when is the actual vote likely to take place.
Apologies if this has been stated elsewhere. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:20 - Jul 2 with 1802 views | MyFinalHeaven |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:21 - Jul 2 by Jinxy |
For me, this is a very much a lesser of two evils. Simplistically, I think the Americans came to value the Trust's input last season after possibly being told initially that the trust were insignificant - my assumption is that the sellers portrayed this in order for a sale to take place (the sellers probably felt that the Trust would oppose etc.). So, I think they now appreciate the Trust as having input, but not control, because they now "trust" where we are coming from (they know we love the club and only want what's best for it and have no selfish motives unlike others potentially!). Also, we largely articulate ourselves well, and have pretty good judgement in football related matters, as was evident last season.
Secondly, I think if the court found in our favour and a full sale of Trust shares were to occur, I think we would actually initiate and perhaps cause the future need for the "rainy day" by not being involved at all.
At the meeting, I was 95% in favour of acceptance and despite some excellent informed information on this thread I am still very much in favour (but still regret this whole situation of course, like us all). Just my opinion of course. |
"Simplistically, I think the Americans came to value the Trust's input last season after possibly being told initially that the trust were insignificant -"
Nonsense. The Americans aren't stupid, and neither is anyone with common sense. In what world would someone regard a 21% stakeholder as "insignificant?" They knew exactly what they were doing. The trust has and will always be seen as a hassle and a burden to the Americans towards gaining full control and making the most money. They've made it loud and clear with their actions. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:22 - Jul 2 with 1790 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:11 - Jul 2 by MattG |
Are you suggesting the PR battle needs to be with our own members? If so then I would agree that our communication needs to improve and steps are being taken to address that.
I assumed we were talking about a wider PR battle, hence my reference to Wathan and his ilk. |
Well a PR battle is only important to people associated with the club. Does it matter if bowls fan Deardre from Carmarthen thinks the Trust is in the wrong? I'd have thought not.
The people that matter in an Americans v Trust PR battle is the very people the Trust have complete access to - that does not limit it to its own members.
The PR and communications have been shocking. And every time it gets brought up it isn't acknowledged - yet nothing changes. I have even volunteered to take charge of such affairs even with my hectic London work schedule - yet it was ignored.
My point being, fear of laying down what the Trust needs to achieve in order to avoid legal action simply due to what the Americans could spin it as in the press really is no excuse. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 10:25]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:27 - Jul 2 with 1773 views | UplandsJack |
Reading through these comments on this thread it's totally apparent to me that the trust board just dont have the stomach for the fight and just want to roll over and take it up the......
They seem to have totally swayed the meeting towards recommending taking the deal on offer and the comments on here from trust board members since support that further.
Where is the hywl in you guys? Wake up ffs. We have NO VOICE at board level now, they just pay lip service to make their lives easier.
The trust need to either push for a much better deal, or go to court and if successful, bank the £21/23 million for the day when we can once again step in and make a difference... |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:39 - Jul 2 with 1736 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:27 - Jul 2 by UplandsJack |
Reading through these comments on this thread it's totally apparent to me that the trust board just dont have the stomach for the fight and just want to roll over and take it up the......
They seem to have totally swayed the meeting towards recommending taking the deal on offer and the comments on here from trust board members since support that further.
Where is the hywl in you guys? Wake up ffs. We have NO VOICE at board level now, they just pay lip service to make their lives easier.
The trust need to either push for a much better deal, or go to court and if successful, bank the £21/23 million for the day when we can once again step in and make a difference... |
At the next address there should certainly be views presented from both sides. Seemed a bit of a kangaroo court in favour of taking the awful deal in the last one disappointingly. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:46 - Jul 2 with 1720 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:27 - Jul 2 by UplandsJack |
Reading through these comments on this thread it's totally apparent to me that the trust board just dont have the stomach for the fight and just want to roll over and take it up the......
They seem to have totally swayed the meeting towards recommending taking the deal on offer and the comments on here from trust board members since support that further.
Where is the hywl in you guys? Wake up ffs. We have NO VOICE at board level now, they just pay lip service to make their lives easier.
The trust need to either push for a much better deal, or go to court and if successful, bank the £21/23 million for the day when we can once again step in and make a difference... |
I'm on the Trust Board and have no intention of rolling over and taking anything from anyone.
I do believe that a negotiated solution is preferable to a long legal battle but, if it is the decision of the members that we go down the legal route and I am still part of the Trust Board, I will fight as hard as I can to win that battle and I believe the same would be the case for the rest of the Board. Why would we not?
We have recommended this deal because we genuinely believe it goes some way to remedying the actions of last summer while retaining Trust involvement within the Club and protecting the value of our remaining shares. To give up on any legal action just because it wasn't what we wanted in the first place would likely result in achieving none of those things and to suggest that the likes of Phil, Ux and others would do so seems, with respect, just a tad disingenuous. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:51 - Jul 2 with 1693 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:19 - Jul 2 by Shaky |
You misunderstand the issue of the warranty, Nookie.
Sellers warranted that there was no shareholders' agreement (in force)
However, the basis of the Unfair Prejudice case is completely independent of the shareholders agreement, which did not contain for example tag-along rights.
Therefore any penalties for the potential breach of that warranty would be trivial relative to the required payment for the Trust's shares.
That said it may be that Kaplan & Co will feel aggrieved that Jenkins has somehow hoodwinked them generally over the sale, and take steps to ostracise him accordingly. I very much doubt they weren't fully onboard with the way the deal was conducted, however, although they would obviously never admit to that publicly. |
Fair enough Shaky
I was thinking the quasi partnership nature of the way the club was run - prior to the sale - with no shareholder in the Majority and no shareholder seemingly able to hold more than a 25% stake - was reflected in the original shareholders agreement.
The Sellers warranted that no original shareholders agreement existed (hence no quasi partnership structure was in place)- so the Yanks bought into the club and set up structure that in QCs opinion has now created the Unfair Prejudice against the club.
Therefore the Yanks could rely on the warranty.
If the legal opinion is completely independent on the original shareholders agreement then fully understand your point - that penalties under the warranty would be trivial. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:52 - Jul 2 with 1687 views | Dewi1jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:11 - Jul 2 by MattG |
Are you suggesting the PR battle needs to be with our own members? If so then I would agree that our communication needs to improve and steps are being taken to address that.
I assumed we were talking about a wider PR battle, hence my reference to Wathan and his ilk. |
No.
Forget about that small time loser Wathan and the rest of the biased sh1te Welsh media ffs, who'll be scared at not getting their invite to press conferences, or get to come and watch us beat Utd/ Arsenal etc.
There's plenty of World wide coverage available ( surprisingly, many countries dislike the Good 'ole US of A, sure they'd have journos who'd be happy to help).
There's plenty of good sports Journos in Great Britain outside of Wales.
The PL has World wide coverage. Don't be like Dimwit, use it.
Sorry for that little tirade.
I have been dipping into and out of this thread since the EMail hit.
I would like to offer my personal thanks to every Trust Board member for the work they do, for trying to answer points on here and for having to deal with some scum bags who have really tucked us all up.
Thanks to all the contributors on here as well, for not resorting to the usual name calling and for trying to clarify both parts of the argument.
It's not made it any easier for me to decide which is the best way to vote.
I do understand (fag book maths here!) that if the Yanks (owning about 68% of the shares) , with Jenkins and Dimwit still owning shares, decide that they want to keep those 2 vermin b'stards, then any vote makes it about 78% to 21%.
So we can't remove those shower of sh1te by legal means.
Only way is to make life so uncomfortable for them at the ground, they scuttle away like the slimy little things they are.
I do have questions.
1/ This deal doesn't seem to be the same as what the scum sellers got. Is it?
2/ Can Tag rights without Drag rights be negotiated?
3/ The Trust has no voice now and the offer of "we may buy your shares, if we wish to, if we don't get relegated etc" seems wishy washy.
Will the Yanks buy 15% outright now, for a higher price than they bought the others (club has increased in value as the income has increased)?
4/ Why didn't the Trust go on a full out exercise last season, to inform as many fans as possible as to what the F was going on?
In my opinion, we need to get the story out to as many fans as possible by leafleting or some other means prior to the home games this season.
Information is king. And the yanks and sellers have the programme notes, the Welsh media etc- we have nearly 20,000 people who can be heard world wide when they're singing!!
I'm in the camp that (and only with an 85% C.I. so not a clear cut vote by me) we should make a counter offer that suits the Trust, not them.
If they're not willing to make a better offer then we as members should vote for legal action and see what the Yanks come back with.
They seem to be offering what is slightly below a bare minimum.
Either way, thanks to those b'stard sellout fugwits, who definitly have proven that they're not Jacks, that they never gave a fuk about the Trust or the club once we hit the jackpot and who've dropped us right in it.
They could have sold for maybe a little less, to someone who wanted to take the club forward and higher- still plenty of rich Chinese/ Oil princes etc out there wanting a PL plaything! They'd still have more than enough to be comfortably off.
Need to make all our fanbase aware!! |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:52 - Jul 2 with 1687 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:27 - Jul 2 by UplandsJack |
Reading through these comments on this thread it's totally apparent to me that the trust board just dont have the stomach for the fight and just want to roll over and take it up the......
They seem to have totally swayed the meeting towards recommending taking the deal on offer and the comments on here from trust board members since support that further.
Where is the hywl in you guys? Wake up ffs. We have NO VOICE at board level now, they just pay lip service to make their lives easier.
The trust need to either push for a much better deal, or go to court and if successful, bank the £21/23 million for the day when we can once again step in and make a difference... |
That just about sums up the situation nicely. And it's sad. Been tossed around like a two penny rabbit yet again. Show some balls guys. Take the bull by the horns and seize the initiative.....it's why you've been walked all over for years. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:00 - Jul 2 with 1651 views | Pokerface |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:46 - Jul 2 by MattG |
I'm on the Trust Board and have no intention of rolling over and taking anything from anyone.
I do believe that a negotiated solution is preferable to a long legal battle but, if it is the decision of the members that we go down the legal route and I am still part of the Trust Board, I will fight as hard as I can to win that battle and I believe the same would be the case for the rest of the Board. Why would we not?
We have recommended this deal because we genuinely believe it goes some way to remedying the actions of last summer while retaining Trust involvement within the Club and protecting the value of our remaining shares. To give up on any legal action just because it wasn't what we wanted in the first place would likely result in achieving none of those things and to suggest that the likes of Phil, Ux and others would do so seems, with respect, just a tad disingenuous. |
Sometimes when many members vote against the guidance / wishes of those in charge, it can be taken that those in charge do not fully represent the members views. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:00 - Jul 2 with 1650 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:46 - Jul 2 by MattG |
I'm on the Trust Board and have no intention of rolling over and taking anything from anyone.
I do believe that a negotiated solution is preferable to a long legal battle but, if it is the decision of the members that we go down the legal route and I am still part of the Trust Board, I will fight as hard as I can to win that battle and I believe the same would be the case for the rest of the Board. Why would we not?
We have recommended this deal because we genuinely believe it goes some way to remedying the actions of last summer while retaining Trust involvement within the Club and protecting the value of our remaining shares. To give up on any legal action just because it wasn't what we wanted in the first place would likely result in achieving none of those things and to suggest that the likes of Phil, Ux and others would do so seems, with respect, just a tad disingenuous. |
Indeed.
And you bring up something I've been harping about for a while now. The deadline for applying to stand for election to the Trust board is Wednesday. With the exceptions of the 5 who were elected last year, all other positions are now up for grabs. That includes the elected positions and then any subsequent cooptees. That includes the chairman, SD and treasurer , associate director and vice chair, and unimportant people such as Matt and I  . It's roughly two thirds. If you think the Trust board needs to be different, to act differently, then here's your chance... Stand for it.
Matts right.. Those standing for election need to understand that this vote could go one of three ways, and need to be comfortable that they understand the challenges that comes with each scenario. Knowing the existing board, they'll get on with it, even if they think it's the wrong option. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:02 - Jul 2 with 1642 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:00 - Jul 2 by Pokerface |
Sometimes when many members vote against the guidance / wishes of those in charge, it can be taken that those in charge do not fully represent the members views. |
And that's what an election is for. Which is happening this month also. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:08 - Jul 2 with 1621 views | Starsky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:05 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
Yeah, that's totally it. If you think Jenkins' future relates to the legal case then you're way off.
No fight eh. That's just superb irony. I'll sign your election application if you want. |
Ux, I apologise for my remarks on my previous address. It was uncalled for, Sorry.
My final word on this. I feel that the Trust winning litigation and armed with a £21million war chest for when it's time to step in again is a better bet than taking the deal and being subjected to the whims of the Americans and anyone they sell the club to.
The £6 million isn't enough to do anything with... except helping with expansion which has already been mooted. Taking the deal may keep the trust in board meetings but little more than an observing capacity. Once the threat of litigation is over, the trust will be vulnerable. |  |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:08 - Jul 2 with 1618 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:19 - Jul 2 by Neath_Jack |
Thank you, when is the actual vote likely to take place.
Apologies if this has been stated elsewhere. |
2 August.  |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:10 - Jul 2 with 1616 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:02 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
And that's what an election is for. Which is happening this month also. |
Which is a closed book of course. The current incumbents can give their electoral speeches stating simply "same old same old".... and they would still get revoted in. Ask Stu Mac. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:11 - Jul 2 with 1608 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:10 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
Which is a closed book of course. The current incumbents can give their electoral speeches stating simply "same old same old".... and they would still get revoted in. Ask Stu Mac. |
But if that's the "will of the people"...? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:13 - Jul 2 with 1603 views | Jinxy |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:20 - Jul 2 by MyFinalHeaven |
"Simplistically, I think the Americans came to value the Trust's input last season after possibly being told initially that the trust were insignificant -"
Nonsense. The Americans aren't stupid, and neither is anyone with common sense. In what world would someone regard a 21% stakeholder as "insignificant?" They knew exactly what they were doing. The trust has and will always be seen as a hassle and a burden to the Americans towards gaining full control and making the most money. They've made it loud and clear with their actions. |
Maybe, but as I said it's my opinion. I still believe that if they knew "exactly what they were doing" then there would have been no threat of litigation, BB would have been a resounding success and so on. My view is that in a few areas they have had a rude awakening, and that their investment was disappearing in front of their very eyes around Christmas. Perhaps (again my opinion) they realised that this whole PL/"soccer"(!) thing is a little more complicated than they thought - who knows. Unless someone can clarify exactly what their mindset was, and is now, then we can only do our best to try and understand it.
Although most of these factors are historical, for me they are important because we need to evaluate how they now view the trust. Again, it's my view (and I am very much cup half full TBH) that they do now value the trust - if that's true then I would rather us work with them from within, than be wealthy outside of the club, maybe powerlessly watching it sink. I think SCFC will benefit from the trust's involvement on a daily basis. Just my opinion sorry! |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:15 - Jul 2 with 1588 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:08 - Jul 2 by Starsky |
Ux, I apologise for my remarks on my previous address. It was uncalled for, Sorry.
My final word on this. I feel that the Trust winning litigation and armed with a £21million war chest for when it's time to step in again is a better bet than taking the deal and being subjected to the whims of the Americans and anyone they sell the club to.
The £6 million isn't enough to do anything with... except helping with expansion which has already been mooted. Taking the deal may keep the trust in board meetings but little more than an observing capacity. Once the threat of litigation is over, the trust will be vulnerable. |
No worries. Thanks. Same in return if I've offended.
I do get it. I hope that's understood. I just disagree.
And with that I shall declare. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:17 - Jul 2 with 1575 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:00 - Jul 2 by Pokerface |
Sometimes when many members vote against the guidance / wishes of those in charge, it can be taken that those in charge do not fully represent the members views. |
We will only ever represent the views of our members in this matter - that's why it is being put out for vote. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:18 - Jul 2 with 1561 views | Starsky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:15 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
No worries. Thanks. Same in return if I've offended.
I do get it. I hope that's understood. I just disagree.
And with that I shall declare. |
Agreed.
Emotional stuff this ain't it 😂 | |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
