| From The Trust 09:59 - Jan 6 with 30792 views | Phil_S |
News from the Trust
Discussions on sale of Trust shares put on hold.
Dear Phil
We have been advised by the majority owners of Swansea City that they intend to put discussions around the sale of some of the Trust's shares to the owners of the club on hold. When informing us of this, the owners of the club cited the ongoing concerns among some Trust and Trust Board members about aspects of the share sale and also the majority owners own desire to concentrate on on-field matters.
As the mandate from Trust members to sell shares was given in July 2017 and there will now be a further delay in fulfilling that mandate, the Trust Board can confirm that a further members’ consultation will take place to ensure the Trust Board is acting on the current views of its membership on how we proceed from this point.
We will provide a further update to members as soon as possible.
Best wishes
The Swans Trust Team |  | | |  |
| From The Trust on 22:44 - Jan 6 with 2564 views | Nookiejack |
| From The Trust on 19:02 - Jan 6 by majorraglan |
This for me would be a real concern and if I were the Trust I would look at exploring options around a potential a “No win no fee” type arrangement.
My take on this is that the new owners can see the writing on the wall and that the Championship is beckoning and they do not want to spend any more money. |
I really don’t think the Yanks are worried about the litigation.
Dont even think they will put up much of a fight.
They will rely on the warranties that the Selling Shareholders gave them.
It’s the Selling Shareholders that are on the run now that the Yanks think it is a waste of money to now buy the Trust’s shares - given likely relegation. |  | | |
| From The Trust on 23:59 - Jan 6 with 2475 views | Yossarian |
| From The Trust on 10:02 - Jan 6 by 3swan |
Delay until the end of the season? 
That has to again show that working relationships cannot be classed as 'good' |
They’re selling and it won’t be their problem then. |  |
| "Yossarian- the very sight of the name made him shudder.There were so many esses in it. It just had to be subversive" (Catch 22) |
| |
| From The Trust on 00:36 - Jan 7 with 2438 views | Dewi1jack |
| From The Trust on 10:01 - Jan 6 by 34dfgdf54 |
Sounds like it will definitely be another vote though.
Happy days. |
Maybe.
Maybe not.
I think there's going to be a rush on Trust memberships. Maybe a few/ few more paid for by the sellouts/ Yanks to try and screw the vote.
I voted no deal the last time. With all the lies and sh1te that's coming out at the mo, I'm 100% sure I was right.
So, that's my decision made for any future vote.
I only rejoined (after the heavily weighted advice to vote deal,) to ensure that whatever shenanigans had gone on to ensure the deal that favoured the Yanks and sellout scum to buy shares in a PL club, didn't get their cash back for a stadium lease/ extension etc.
Trust must be transparent from now on, if they are to even start to regain the trust of the fan base.
Need to have people in the Trust that aren't in it purely for the kudos of saying "i'm a Trust board member/ hold shares in a PL club etc" People we have faith in
Need the SD to start making updates as well- far too quiet from the start.
Or is this the tail wagging the dog? Again!!
I hope that everyone against the sale on here and in the stadium now joins the Trust and can be bothered to vote this time around.
Let's not lose this chance to (IMHO) correct the previous vote |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| From The Trust on 01:12 - Jan 7 with 2414 views | wobbly |
| From The Trust on 22:44 - Jan 6 by Nookiejack |
I really don’t think the Yanks are worried about the litigation.
Dont even think they will put up much of a fight.
They will rely on the warranties that the Selling Shareholders gave them.
It’s the Selling Shareholders that are on the run now that the Yanks think it is a waste of money to now buy the Trust’s shares - given likely relegation. |
I think this is a bit naive. Which particular warranty do you think the yanks are going to rely on? The sellers sold shares that they had a right to sell. |  | | |
| From The Trust on 07:50 - Jan 7 with 2308 views | Uxbridge |
| From The Trust on 01:12 - Jan 7 by wobbly |
I think this is a bit naive. Which particular warranty do you think the yanks are going to rely on? The sellers sold shares that they had a right to sell. |
Quite. Nobody is ever blasé about the prospect of being sued just because they have the possibility of suing someone else. |  |
| |
| From The Trust on 09:16 - Jan 7 with 2224 views | Whiterockin |
| From The Trust on 01:12 - Jan 7 by wobbly |
I think this is a bit naive. Which particular warranty do you think the yanks are going to rely on? The sellers sold shares that they had a right to sell. |
But did they have the right to sell them to the Americans. If the case for the trust is this sale should not have gone through, because the trust had first option. Then if this is proved surely the Americans have a case against the sellers, because they were not entitled to sell the shares to them. They can then claim the shares should not have been sold and claim the sale back from the sellers at full payment value. Irrespective of the current share value if we are in the Championship.
This is the real reason the sellouts are panicking. |  | | |
| From The Trust on 09:18 - Jan 7 with 2215 views | thornabyswan |
| From The Trust on 23:59 - Jan 6 by Yossarian |
They’re selling and it won’t be their problem then. |
Oh that would be nice | |
| |
| From The Trust on 09:22 - Jan 7 with 2197 views | felixstowe_jack |
| From The Trust on 10:01 - Jan 6 by 34dfgdf54 |
Sounds like it will definitely be another vote though.
Happy days. |
Trouble is all those voted for the trust to take legal action threw their toys out of the pram and have not renewed their membership this season. They can't vote this time. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| From The Trust on 09:27 - Jan 7 with 2191 views | wobbly |
| From The Trust on 09:16 - Jan 7 by Whiterockin |
But did they have the right to sell them to the Americans. If the case for the trust is this sale should not have gone through, because the trust had first option. Then if this is proved surely the Americans have a case against the sellers, because they were not entitled to sell the shares to them. They can then claim the shares should not have been sold and claim the sale back from the sellers at full payment value. Irrespective of the current share value if we are in the Championship.
This is the real reason the sellouts are panicking. |
No, I don’t think so. The case for the trust as suggested with the materials when we had the vote is that they have been unfairly prejudiced. The trust could never have enforced that right you mention, even if they had been given notice of what was happening, so difficult to see how they’ve been prejudiced there?
Lots of other things happened though where there is a pretty good case, I would say. The selling shareholders probably aren’t doing themselves any favours with their recent interviews either - seems to give even more evidence of collusion and conspiracy to keep the trust away from the deal until it was too late. | | | |
| From The Trust on 09:31 - Jan 7 with 2171 views | Whiterockin |
| From The Trust on 09:27 - Jan 7 by wobbly |
No, I don’t think so. The case for the trust as suggested with the materials when we had the vote is that they have been unfairly prejudiced. The trust could never have enforced that right you mention, even if they had been given notice of what was happening, so difficult to see how they’ve been prejudiced there?
Lots of other things happened though where there is a pretty good case, I would say. The selling shareholders probably aren’t doing themselves any favours with their recent interviews either - seems to give even more evidence of collusion and conspiracy to keep the trust away from the deal until it was too late. |
Weather the trust could have enforced the right (raised the funds) or not is immaterial. The offer should have been put forward, this is the crux of the trusts case. | | | |
| From The Trust on 09:31 - Jan 7 with 2170 views | Shaky |
|  |
| |
| From The Trust on 09:31 - Jan 7 with 2169 views | thornabyswan |
| From The Trust on 09:16 - Jan 7 by Whiterockin |
But did they have the right to sell them to the Americans. If the case for the trust is this sale should not have gone through, because the trust had first option. Then if this is proved surely the Americans have a case against the sellers, because they were not entitled to sell the shares to them. They can then claim the shares should not have been sold and claim the sale back from the sellers at full payment value. Irrespective of the current share value if we are in the Championship.
This is the real reason the sellouts are panicking. |
I may give Pinocchio 50p when he is layed out on a bench in castle gardens. | |
| |
| From The Trust on 09:32 - Jan 7 with 2162 views | Whiterockin |
| From The Trust on 09:31 - Jan 7 by thornabyswan |
I may give Pinocchio 50p when he is layed out on a bench in castle gardens. |
Before or after you piss on him. | | | |
| From The Trust on 09:34 - Jan 7 with 2153 views | Shaky |
| From The Trust on 09:31 - Jan 7 by Whiterockin |
Weather the trust could have enforced the right (raised the funds) or not is immaterial. The offer should have been put forward, this is the crux of the trusts case. |
No it is not.
The Trust did not suffer any actual harm or loss by being deprived of the offer to buy out other shareholders that they had no money to act on.
Psychological harm and hurt feelings typically aren't actionalble. | |
| |
| From The Trust on 09:37 - Jan 7 with 2141 views | wobbly |
| From The Trust on 09:31 - Jan 7 by Whiterockin |
Weather the trust could have enforced the right (raised the funds) or not is immaterial. The offer should have been put forward, this is the crux of the trusts case. |
Let’s hope it’s not the crux of the case. They’ll lose if it is.
No prejudice, no harm and no damages arising. | | | |
| From The Trust on 09:38 - Jan 7 with 2135 views | thornabyswan |
| From The Trust on 09:34 - Jan 7 by Shaky |
No it is not.
The Trust did not suffer any actual harm or loss by being deprived of the offer to buy out other shareholders that they had no money to act on.
Psychological harm and hurt feelings typically aren't actionalble. |
So what is the crux of their case then. | |
| |
| From The Trust on 09:38 - Jan 7 with 2131 views | exiledclaseboy |
| From The Trust on 09:22 - Jan 7 by felixstowe_jack |
Trouble is all those voted for the trust to take legal action threw their toys out of the pram and have not renewed their membership this season. They can't vote this time. |
They can if they rejoin. |  |
| |
| From The Trust on 09:44 - Jan 7 with 2106 views | Shaky |
| From The Trust on 09:38 - Jan 7 by thornabyswan |
So what is the crux of their case then. |
As I articulated it that the Trust have been excluded from participating in the control premium when the club was effectively sold. That's what corporate acquirors typically pay so they can do whatever they like with their targets, in comparison to smaller investors who just get their share of dividends and the occasionsal vote.
However, there are other possible themes around this that could be applied, but to me that seems to capture the broadest possible scope. | |
| |
| From The Trust on 09:50 - Jan 7 with 2085 views | thornabyswan |
| From The Trust on 09:44 - Jan 7 by Shaky |
As I articulated it that the Trust have been excluded from participating in the control premium when the club was effectively sold. That's what corporate acquirors typically pay so they can do whatever they like with their targets, in comparison to smaller investors who just get their share of dividends and the occasionsal vote.
However, there are other possible themes around this that could be applied, but to me that seems to capture the broadest possible scope. |
You are Humphrey Appleby I claim my £5 | |
| |
| From The Trust on 09:52 - Jan 7 with 2075 views | Shaky |
| From The Trust on 09:50 - Jan 7 by thornabyswan |
You are Humphrey Appleby I claim my £5 |
WTF does that mean? | |
| |
| From The Trust on 09:54 - Jan 7 with 2057 views | whoflungdung |
Seems we re in he midst of an accountants conference and most I'm sure will be over the heads of us non accountant types.
Arguably the least trustworthy profession and people of all | |
| |
| From The Trust on 09:57 - Jan 7 with 2039 views | wobbly |
| From The Trust on 09:54 - Jan 7 by whoflungdung |
Seems we re in he midst of an accountants conference and most I'm sure will be over the heads of us non accountant types.
Arguably the least trustworthy profession and people of all |
Oh I dunno. The police are not getting great headlines these days. And they were worse in the, er, old days eh? | | | |
| From The Trust on 10:05 - Jan 7 with 2011 views | Shaky |
Interesting. Just spent 10 minutes unsuccessfully looking for the thread where I set out the legal strategy including the unfair prejudice claim back in the spring.
Granted the board software is shit, but I haven't posted that much.
Did you delete that Phil? If so why? | |
| |
| From The Trust on 10:08 - Jan 7 with 2007 views | Shaky |
| From The Trust on 09:54 - Jan 7 by whoflungdung |
Seems we re in he midst of an accountants conference and most I'm sure will be over the heads of us non accountant types.
Arguably the least trustworthy profession and people of all |
Can't fcuking keep your mouth shut, can you?
You just have to babble some old shit. | |
| |
| From The Trust on 10:09 - Jan 7 with 2002 views | MattG |
| From The Trust on 09:44 - Jan 7 by Shaky |
As I articulated it that the Trust have been excluded from participating in the control premium when the club was effectively sold. That's what corporate acquirors typically pay so they can do whatever they like with their targets, in comparison to smaller investors who just get their share of dividends and the occasionsal vote.
However, there are other possible themes around this that could be applied, but to me that seems to capture the broadest possible scope. |
Not an accountant but isn't that, to some extent at least, dealt with by the Yanks offering (until yesterday, at least) to buy from the Trust at the same price as the original sale? |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
