| From The Trust 09:59 - Jan 6 with 30794 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 14:38 - Jan 7 with 2700 views | Shaky |
| From The Trust on 12:22 - Jan 7 by Nookiejack |
The question is why does Huw Jenkins get is lawyer just before the sale to ask the Trust to sign off that there was no Original Shareholders Agreement?
Answer because the Selling Shareholders have given a warranty to the Yanks that there was not one.
If no issue then why does HJ’s lawyer ask for one.
Shaky has previously said he thinks it is a belt and braces approach - that’s what a good lawyer would do.
Believe who you will. Someone might have passed Shaky the documents and he is a lawyer - so maybe that is why he is so confident that the Yanks could not rely on the warranties. If Shaky hasn’t seen the documents then his view is as good as anyones?
Moscow is now saying that Trust will run out of money taking this to court - so someone is uncomfortable on how this could go if it does go to court. Not sure if Moscow is speaking on behalf of the Trust (as there does seem to be concerns here about the cost) or for MM. |
I am not a lawyer, Nookie.
I'm a former merchant banker, as any Cockney would tell you |  |
| |
| From The Trust on 15:00 - Jan 7 with 2633 views | whoflungdung |
Give us thick Kunts a resume in simple language shaky
To most people, away from this site, this is now a soap opera .
It looks like we re eating ourselves as a club.
Local people squabbling and others simply gorging on prem league money
Not pretty is it |  |
| |
| From The Trust on 15:07 - Jan 7 with 2610 views | Shaky |
| From The Trust on 15:00 - Jan 7 by whoflungdung |
Give us thick Kunts a resume in simple language shaky
To most people, away from this site, this is now a soap opera .
It looks like we re eating ourselves as a club.
Local people squabbling and others simply gorging on prem league money
Not pretty is it |
Jenkins organised the sale of the club but kept the Trust out of it. They were unable to sell even if they had wanted to.
That is at best deeply unethical but under the circumstances almost certainly also in breach of common law.
That means the Trust has recourse to exchanging their shares for the same money pro rata paid to the others last summer. [Post edited 7 Jan 2018 15:08]
| |
| |
| From The Trust on 15:40 - Jan 7 with 2572 views | Nookiejack |
| From The Trust on 14:38 - Jan 7 by Shaky |
I am not a lawyer, Nookie.
I'm a former merchant banker, as any Cockney would tell you |
Apologies Shaky I thought you were a M&A lawyer. | | | |
| From The Trust on 15:50 - Jan 7 with 2531 views | whoflungdung |
I'm grateful for that reply Shaky
Why is the Trust so crucial to our club. Could we not survive without .
Do we need a Trust because we simply cannot trust those who own and operate our club . A safety net ,if you like. It says much that we cannot run a club without being subjected to behaviour which, to me, borders on criminal .
The Jenkins false minutes is something that staggers me and why matters haven't morphed into criminal investigation.
It would not surprise me to see criminal charges emanating from this maelstrom when all these Machiavellian practices are fully exposed | |
| |
| From The Trust on 16:52 - Jan 7 with 2450 views | Gowerjack |
| From The Trust on 13:58 - Jan 7 by Nookiejack |
The Trust hasn't got anything to lose though has it.
What is the current value of the Trusts's shares? £21m down to sub £5m?
What good is £800k?
Let's see how far the £800k takes the Trust. Who knows how much may be donated locally if the Trust calls publicly and throughout the UK for contributions - through UK Supporters network.
No-one knows how this could play out and the Trust hasn't got anything to lose.
My gut-feeling is that if the Yanks lose - they will sue the Selling Shareholders under the warranty. They will have to pay say £16m for the Trust's shares - probably leaving the Trust with 5% residual stakes, like HJ and MM.
That means they will have to explain to their 27 person consortium why they are paying £16m for shares worth sub £5m? I think they would have no choice to sue however unlikely you think the chance they would have of winning.
The Yanks don't really seem to be at all bothered about the Trust launching legal action - so I can only assume they think they are covered under the warranty. |
Is it not possible that the Yanks have had advice to the effect that the trust legal action would fail?
Hence them not being bothered? |  |
| |
| From The Trust on 18:07 - Jan 7 with 2370 views | Oldjack |
| From The Trust on 15:50 - Jan 7 by whoflungdung |
I'm grateful for that reply Shaky
Why is the Trust so crucial to our club. Could we not survive without .
Do we need a Trust because we simply cannot trust those who own and operate our club . A safety net ,if you like. It says much that we cannot run a club without being subjected to behaviour which, to me, borders on criminal .
The Jenkins false minutes is something that staggers me and why matters haven't morphed into criminal investigation.
It would not surprise me to see criminal charges emanating from this maelstrom when all these Machiavellian practices are fully exposed |
The trust got nothing to lose now and have more than enough evidence to win in court .I said a long time ago they'll back out of buying shares if they thought we'd go down ,that seems the case now ,The Trust need to realize they're dealing with devious people and that includes treacherous Huw &co ,whose only aim in life is to make money and they don't give a fuk who they crush along the way ,
WAKE UP THE TRUST ! |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| From The Trust on 18:11 - Jan 7 with 2362 views | MoscowJack |
Nookie,
Just to get something clear - I speak for myself and nobody else. Ever.
Anyone who knows me will know that I won't lie or be deceitful for someone else. If I don't agree with someone, I'll tell them, no matter how close I am to them. Equally, I've actually supported the views of people who are far from ever being on my Christmas card list, simply because I believe in what they said. It's how I can be pro-people on the Trust but not pro-Trust. It's how I can love the club, but not the people running it.
I might be wrong more often than not, but at least I know it's me that's wrong and not someone else that I'm just copying or speaking for. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| From The Trust on 18:15 - Jan 7 with 2339 views | monmouth |
| From The Trust on 16:52 - Jan 7 by Gowerjack |
Is it not possible that the Yanks have had advice to the effect that the trust legal action would fail?
Hence them not being bothered? |
Not really likely I would submit or there would never have been any deal on the table. |  |
| |
| From The Trust on 18:32 - Jan 7 with 2277 views | Nookiejack |
| From The Trust on 18:11 - Jan 7 by MoscowJack |
Nookie,
Just to get something clear - I speak for myself and nobody else. Ever.
Anyone who knows me will know that I won't lie or be deceitful for someone else. If I don't agree with someone, I'll tell them, no matter how close I am to them. Equally, I've actually supported the views of people who are far from ever being on my Christmas card list, simply because I believe in what they said. It's how I can be pro-people on the Trust but not pro-Trust. It's how I can love the club, but not the people running it.
I might be wrong more often than not, but at least I know it's me that's wrong and not someone else that I'm just copying or speaking for. |
Nick
Re:
"Is it possible that they've just thought "fcuk it, if they want a fight, we'll give them one" and will drain the Trust's £800k in legal fees over the next few years?
In almost every experience I've had with Americans, they love threatening court and know that they'll win 9/10 if they have significant more money than the people they're fighting. It might be different in UK, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could drain every penny from the Trust's account before a decision is even made."
What then does that result in?
Does that mean you recommend the Trust shouldn't take legal action and keep its shares in a total minority position under the new articles (its shares being totally illiquid) or that the Trust should take legal action with the knowledge that the £800k could be lost in legal fees? | | | |
| From The Trust on 18:36 - Jan 7 with 2256 views | LeonWasGod |
| From The Trust on 18:07 - Jan 7 by Oldjack |
The trust got nothing to lose now and have more than enough evidence to win in court .I said a long time ago they'll back out of buying shares if they thought we'd go down ,that seems the case now ,The Trust need to realize they're dealing with devious people and that includes treacherous Huw &co ,whose only aim in life is to make money and they don't give a fuk who they crush along the way ,
WAKE UP THE TRUST ! |
The Trust members decide though. They're the ones who need to wake up, especially the 50% or so who couldn't be bothered to vote. Staggering that is. |  | | |
| From The Trust on 18:49 - Jan 7 with 2222 views | MoscowJack |
| From The Trust on 18:32 - Jan 7 by Nookiejack |
Nick
Re:
"Is it possible that they've just thought "fcuk it, if they want a fight, we'll give them one" and will drain the Trust's £800k in legal fees over the next few years?
In almost every experience I've had with Americans, they love threatening court and know that they'll win 9/10 if they have significant more money than the people they're fighting. It might be different in UK, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could drain every penny from the Trust's account before a decision is even made."
What then does that result in?
Does that mean you recommend the Trust shouldn't take legal action and keep its shares in a total minority position under the new articles (its shares being totally illiquid) or that the Trust should take legal action with the knowledge that the £800k could be lost in legal fees? |
Nookie,
To be honest, I'm not sure which way I would vote as I don't know enough about the case. The Yanks offering to buy shares in return for a guarantee of no further litigation suggests that they're worried. They're worried that they could lose in court and worried that a pending court case could stop or hinder any potential quick sale, should they want one.
Part of me screams "fcuk 'em and go for the jugular" but another part is very nervous of entering any legal wrangle with Americans, especially when their pockets are far, far deeper than the Trusts. Large American firms are famous for dragging case out until their opposition can no longer defend themselves properly.
I have said to several Trust Board members, going back probably 18-24 months, that they MIGHT be better off selling part or all of the shares as being powerless and rich is better than being powerless and skint. I was actually laughed at when I first suggested it, but it made sense to me (although I didn't realise any sale would have the sort clauses and payment being dragged out of x amount of years that's actually on offer).
I suppose I would listen to those who know better (ie Dai L and Lisa) and then make my mind up, but my gut feeling has always been to get some more money for a rainy day. [Post edited 7 Jan 2018 18:52]
| |
| |
| From The Trust on 19:20 - Jan 7 with 2143 views | swanforthemoney |
| From The Trust on 18:49 - Jan 7 by MoscowJack |
Nookie,
To be honest, I'm not sure which way I would vote as I don't know enough about the case. The Yanks offering to buy shares in return for a guarantee of no further litigation suggests that they're worried. They're worried that they could lose in court and worried that a pending court case could stop or hinder any potential quick sale, should they want one.
Part of me screams "fcuk 'em and go for the jugular" but another part is very nervous of entering any legal wrangle with Americans, especially when their pockets are far, far deeper than the Trusts. Large American firms are famous for dragging case out until their opposition can no longer defend themselves properly.
I have said to several Trust Board members, going back probably 18-24 months, that they MIGHT be better off selling part or all of the shares as being powerless and rich is better than being powerless and skint. I was actually laughed at when I first suggested it, but it made sense to me (although I didn't realise any sale would have the sort clauses and payment being dragged out of x amount of years that's actually on offer).
I suppose I would listen to those who know better (ie Dai L and Lisa) and then make my mind up, but my gut feeling has always been to get some more money for a rainy day. [Post edited 7 Jan 2018 18:52]
|
Nicely put Moscow.
Very much coincides with my way of thinking.
it still needs cool heads when considering whether to go to court.
BTW. I'm told by by a relative who's a Corporate Lawyer that it takes about a YEAR to get a Court date once you decide to take action. |  |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| From The Trust on 21:34 - Jan 7 with 1966 views | Dewi1jack |
| From The Trust on 15:07 - Jan 7 by Shaky |
Jenkins organised the sale of the club but kept the Trust out of it. They were unable to sell even if they had wanted to.
That is at best deeply unethical but under the circumstances almost certainly also in breach of common law.
That means the Trust has recourse to exchanging their shares for the same money pro rata paid to the others last summer. [Post edited 7 Jan 2018 15:08]
|
Personally, I really can't understand why some of this 'sell and buy shares' between the Ex and present board isn't already being investigated by the Police
Breach of Common Law breaks Criminal Law
Maybe it's time for the Trust to stop pussyfooting around people who were onto a good thing with the deal and give the Bill a ring.
Beaky would have been buying shares from the Trust- good crack if the shares would have increased in value
People who once they saw their possible increase in share sale money/ tv rights money going South, want out of the deal.
People who didn't want to work with the Trust at anytime, sellers or buyers
Untrustworthy people through and through
Good, clear, concise communication is needed from now on from the people we elected to look after our 21% interest in the club.
Our interest. Not yours
Kid Gloves off from now on in please |  |
| 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 09:53 - Jan 8 with 1812 views | Shaky |
| From The Trust on 19:20 - Jan 7 by swanforthemoney |
Nicely put Moscow.
Very much coincides with my way of thinking.
it still needs cool heads when considering whether to go to court.
BTW. I'm told by by a relative who's a Corporate Lawyer that it takes about a YEAR to get a Court date once you decide to take action. |
I discussed the lead times to get a court date back in the deal mega thread.
Yes, it might take a while for the case to come up - although the High Court have apparently made some progress clearling their backlog recently - but the point is no legal fees are being racked up during the waiting period.
The potential to use large scale litigation devices that drag out the time and cost of actions is generally also much reduced in the UK versus the US.
And the fact is that the legal arguments of the unfair prejudice have actually quite recently been very well developed and clarified in one of the the cases I mentioned Sharp v Blank.
Here is a write up that might be helpful to some: http://www.jordanpublishing.co.uk/practice-areas/company/news_and_comment/do-dir
Other than that the basic facts are fairly straightforward, and not really in dispute as far as I can see.
Should be a doddle. | |
| |
| From The Trust on 10:26 - Jan 8 with 1757 views | Dewi1jack |
| From The Trust on 09:53 - Jan 8 by Shaky |
I discussed the lead times to get a court date back in the deal mega thread.
Yes, it might take a while for the case to come up - although the High Court have apparently made some progress clearling their backlog recently - but the point is no legal fees are being racked up during the waiting period.
The potential to use large scale litigation devices that drag out the time and cost of actions is generally also much reduced in the UK versus the US.
And the fact is that the legal arguments of the unfair prejudice have actually quite recently been very well developed and clarified in one of the the cases I mentioned Sharp v Blank.
Here is a write up that might be helpful to some: http://www.jordanpublishing.co.uk/practice-areas/company/news_and_comment/do-dir
Other than that the basic facts are fairly straightforward, and not really in dispute as far as I can see.
Should be a doddle. |
Glad the deal's been pulled personally. Even if the Yanks have done so
Although IMHO, the Trust should have pulled out a while ago.
Costs in the Oyston V Belokon + Blackpool case are around the £1.5 million for both sides with Belokons costs around £425, 000.
https://www.thelawyer.com/issues/online-february-2017/clifford-chance-secures-vi
And the Oystons have to cough up about £30 million to buy him out after unfair prejudice
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/nov/06/oystons-blackpool-ordered-pay-s
This case has set a few precedents that may help us should it go to Court and IMHO it should because the Yanks have proved to be liars and our Ex Board have made £millions by stitching us up
But I'm not a lawyer.
The one for the Trust has spoken and no legal eagle worth their salt is going to give a cast iron guarantee.
No win no fee is probably the closest you'll get to one of those.
Or if you really want a guarantee...
...Buy a toaster | |
| 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 10:29 - Jan 8 with 1751 views | Nookiejack |
| From The Trust on 09:53 - Jan 8 by Shaky |
I discussed the lead times to get a court date back in the deal mega thread.
Yes, it might take a while for the case to come up - although the High Court have apparently made some progress clearling their backlog recently - but the point is no legal fees are being racked up during the waiting period.
The potential to use large scale litigation devices that drag out the time and cost of actions is generally also much reduced in the UK versus the US.
And the fact is that the legal arguments of the unfair prejudice have actually quite recently been very well developed and clarified in one of the the cases I mentioned Sharp v Blank.
Here is a write up that might be helpful to some: http://www.jordanpublishing.co.uk/practice-areas/company/news_and_comment/do-dir
Other than that the basic facts are fairly straightforward, and not really in dispute as far as I can see.
Should be a doddle. |
Very insightful Shaky
That should ease Moscow’s concerns about launching the legal action. | | | |
| From The Trust on 10:37 - Jan 8 with 1734 views | monmouth |
| From The Trust on 10:26 - Jan 8 by Dewi1jack |
Glad the deal's been pulled personally. Even if the Yanks have done so
Although IMHO, the Trust should have pulled out a while ago.
Costs in the Oyston V Belokon + Blackpool case are around the £1.5 million for both sides with Belokons costs around £425, 000.
https://www.thelawyer.com/issues/online-february-2017/clifford-chance-secures-vi
And the Oystons have to cough up about £30 million to buy him out after unfair prejudice
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/nov/06/oystons-blackpool-ordered-pay-s
This case has set a few precedents that may help us should it go to Court and IMHO it should because the Yanks have proved to be liars and our Ex Board have made £millions by stitching us up
But I'm not a lawyer.
The one for the Trust has spoken and no legal eagle worth their salt is going to give a cast iron guarantee.
No win no fee is probably the closest you'll get to one of those.
Or if you really want a guarantee...
...Buy a toaster |
The affordability, and indeed liability, for costs needs clearly to be bottomed out as part of the recommendation. | |
| |
| From The Trust on 10:49 - Jan 8 with 1711 views | Nookiejack |
| From The Trust on 10:37 - Jan 8 by monmouth |
The affordability, and indeed liability, for costs needs clearly to be bottomed out as part of the recommendation. |
Yes that is the right approach.
It does make you think though why go through 3 years of this (since Yanks V1.0), if you then realise you haven’t got enough money to fund legal action and defend the value and rights of your shareholding.
Should have presumably sold then in respect of Yanks V1.0. | | | |
| From The Trust on 11:00 - Jan 8 with 1683 views | MoscowJack |
| From The Trust on 10:29 - Jan 8 by Nookiejack |
Very insightful Shaky
That should ease Moscow’s concerns about launching the legal action. |
The case against the Oyston's cost £1.5m but the Trust has nowhere near that in the bank, so how has it eased my fears?
If Dai Little & Co could find a less financially risky way of litigating, I would be all for it. I'm not sure that a 'no-win, no-fee' option is either possible or a good idea at this level, but I would trust Dai & Co to know what's the best option.
In addition, I wouldn't aim to sell just 5% but sell all of the shares bar the 5% that allows the Trust to stay on the Board. The Trust has no or little power/influence now so why not get as much as possible while there's a chance? £10m+ could be a good fighting fund in the future. | |
| |
| From The Trust on 11:09 - Jan 8 with 1666 views | Nookiejack |
| From The Trust on 11:00 - Jan 8 by MoscowJack |
The case against the Oyston's cost £1.5m but the Trust has nowhere near that in the bank, so how has it eased my fears?
If Dai Little & Co could find a less financially risky way of litigating, I would be all for it. I'm not sure that a 'no-win, no-fee' option is either possible or a good idea at this level, but I would trust Dai & Co to know what's the best option.
In addition, I wouldn't aim to sell just 5% but sell all of the shares bar the 5% that allows the Trust to stay on the Board. The Trust has no or little power/influence now so why not get as much as possible while there's a chance? £10m+ could be a good fighting fund in the future. |
Nick,
Have you got any links in respect of the £1.5m?
Is the £1.5m the costs the Oyston’s had to pay when they lost the case?
You wonder whether the Yanks could claim this under the warranty as well against the selling shareholders. | | | |
| From The Trust on 11:15 - Jan 8 with 1651 views | MoscowJack |
| From The Trust on 11:09 - Jan 8 by Nookiejack |
Nick,
Have you got any links in respect of the £1.5m?
Is the £1.5m the costs the Oyston’s had to pay when they lost the case?
You wonder whether the Yanks could claim this under the warranty as well against the selling shareholders. |
Dewi posted the links above re. the £1.5m.
Belokon's a very rich man and can afford to lose £1.5m, but the Trust can't. Also, this is only the first stage as the Oyston's will appeal and appeal and appeal. It's not impossible that the legal fees could be 4x that by the end of the case.
Hiring a magic circle (or similar) law firm is crazily expensive - I once sat in on a 30 minute meeting with Linklaters brought in just to be a witness. They charged £70k just to basically record and witness the meeting.
I could be very wrong though as I'm not in any way a legal expert which is why I would like to hear from someone who's more experienced and qualified to judge.
Going for the jugular (wasn't this called 'the nuclear option' previously?) is my preference but not at the risk of losing all the Trust's money. | |
| |
| From The Trust on 11:21 - Jan 8 with 1632 views | Fireboy2 |
| From The Trust on 11:09 - Jan 8 by Nookiejack |
Nick,
Have you got any links in respect of the £1.5m?
Is the £1.5m the costs the Oyston’s had to pay when they lost the case?
You wonder whether the Yanks could claim this under the warranty as well against the selling shareholders. |
I dont know how much it cost to take the oystons to court but i do know that valeri belekon the wonga owner took the action so i suspect he would have covered the costs
But what i do know is that the scum oystons have got their comeuppance as they owe 25 million to be paid in instalments by the end of may and i think that includes court costs
Our sellouts arent as bad as the oystons as they have been overtly rubbing the noses of the blackpool fans to the fact that they have been ripping the club off since the PL days
Our lot have been (apart from van clog) a bit more clandestine in their dealings but still let the fans and the club down big style |  | | |
| From The Trust on 11:21 - Jan 8 with 1632 views | Nookiejack |
| From The Trust on 11:15 - Jan 8 by MoscowJack |
Dewi posted the links above re. the £1.5m.
Belokon's a very rich man and can afford to lose £1.5m, but the Trust can't. Also, this is only the first stage as the Oyston's will appeal and appeal and appeal. It's not impossible that the legal fees could be 4x that by the end of the case.
Hiring a magic circle (or similar) law firm is crazily expensive - I once sat in on a 30 minute meeting with Linklaters brought in just to be a witness. They charged £70k just to basically record and witness the meeting.
I could be very wrong though as I'm not in any way a legal expert which is why I would like to hear from someone who's more experienced and qualified to judge.
Going for the jugular (wasn't this called 'the nuclear option' previously?) is my preference but not at the risk of losing all the Trust's money. |
Nick,
Surely that is what the £800k is for to protect the value of the shareholding.
It is a war chest. | | | |
| From The Trust on 11:23 - Jan 8 with 1628 views | Nookiejack |
Nick,
Which option that the Trust members decide do you think would best suit MM? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
