| Trust Response 13:21 - Feb 13 with 13185 views | Darran |
Supporters’ Trust notes with interest, surprise and anger the press release from IPS Law, the legal representative of at least some of the former shareholders of Swansea City Football Club, and the subsequent article in the Mail Online, both of which are factually incorrect and wrongly blame the Trust for lack of progress towards a mediated settlement in relation to the sale of our football club in 2016. We note with surprise that the Mail Online did not seek any comment from the Trust before publishing its article. Legal advice is being taken.
As members will be aware from several previous Trust statements (some still publicly available on the Trust website), the Trust first proposed mediation as long ago as 18th May 2018 in its Claim Letter sent to the Club’s American owners and Huw Jenkins and other selling shareholders. This was sent in order to comply with the High Court’s Practice Direction, which sets out what parties in dispute should do prior to issuing court proceedings. It lays down a maximum timeline of three months within which the defendant parties should provide a full written response to the claim. Whilst the owners eventually provided a belated response, nine months later the Trust was still waiting for one from the Huw Jenkins and others represented by IPS Law. Finally, last Friday Chris Farnell of IPS Law informed our legal representatives that he had been instructed not to provide a detailed response to the claim letter, demonstrating that his clients had no intention of complying with the Practice Direction — and opening themselves to costs sanctions from the court if or when proceedings have to be issued against them.
IPS Law claims that their clients are willing to mediate, but that is at odds with their refusal to address the legal issues set out in the claim letter. Mediation cannot sensibly take place without that response/defence and the Trust cannot commit to wasting the funds of our members whilst the selling shareholders concerned refuse to properly engage in the pre-action process.
The Trust must also respond to the patently untrue accusation that we have twice backed out of a mediation. As our members will be aware, the first proposed mediation towards the end of last year was cancelled due to the late decision of Jason Levien not to attend. It should also be noted that it became clear in the last week that neither of the managing partners of the majority shareholders, Steve Kaplan or Jason Levien, were planning to attend the proposed February mediation dates either, in spite of the Trust having made it clear that the attendance of one of them was vital if the Trust was to commit to spending thousands of pounds on a mediation. Although alternative attendees were suggested, a mediation is much less likely to be productive while the managing partners of the club’s owners are not prepared to fully engage.
It was again the Trust which took the initiative and proposed mediation this year, by letter from its lawyers on 16 January. This specified that Huw Jenkins and the other selling shareholders represented by IPS Law should deliver their response/defence letter by 31 January. As noted already, last Friday, though IPS Law, they refused to do so and in so doing rejected the Trust’s proposal for a mediation. That, coupled with the refusal of Messrs Levien and Kaplan to attend, is the reason that a mediation has not gone ahead. The published allegation that the Trust unilaterally withdrew at the last minute is simply untrue.
The Trust notes that while we remain in dispute with the club’s majority shareholders on various issues, they have at least shown some level of willingness to engage with the Trust. It is disappointing and notable that the selling shareholders concerned, self-proclaimed fans and former custodians of the club, have shown significantly less willingness to engage in the pre-action process.
We also note that the first move of those selling shareholders after the breakdown in discussions was to get their legal representative to rush out and speak to the press, which hardly seems in the best interests of the Football Club from which Huw Jenkins has recently resigned as chairman. It is astonishing that they accuse the Trust of trying to damage the club when we look at the current league position in comparison to 2016.
Whilst the Trust remains willing to engage in mediation, that is entirely dependent on all other parties taking the process seriously. We note the willingness of the selling shareholders concerned, through their legal representatives, to play this out in the court of public opinion rather than through the legal process. We can only conclude that this, along with their reluctance to even put forward a defence to our claim as is required by the courts’ practice direction, can only be due to the fact they know they have no defence. On the issue of costs consequences to the Trust or the impact on our legal position, our legal advisors are fully confident that the record will show it is the Trust that has made every effort to ensure that the mediation process is followed and succeeds, and we have often gone above and beyond to give this process a chance of success.
In terms of next steps, our members will know the Trust is planning a consultation with members next month where our membership would have the chance to vote on the various options available to the Trust. One of these options would be whether to proceed with legal action in relation to the 2016 sale of our football club.
The Trust has extended the offer to the legal representatives of the majority owners to continue discussions between the two parties with a view to seeking a settlement, which we would then present to our members as an option during the consultation. We hope this offer is taken up. In the meantime, the Trust’s legal team will be considering our options regarding pursuing claims against IPS Law’s clients separately.
Swansea City Supporters Trust
13th February 2019
[Post edited 13 Feb 2019 13:26]
|  |
| |  |
| Trust Response on 13:28 - Feb 13 with 5781 views | Chief |
The sellouts lying again. I'm not surprised. |  |
| |
| Trust Response on 13:39 - Feb 13 with 5699 views | blackswan |
Get the kunts in court where Jenkins has previously been exposed as a fecking liar whose is prepared to falsify company documents |  | | |
| Trust Response on 13:46 - Feb 13 with 5650 views | Thornburyswan |
It almost feels like the yanks & the sellouts want it to end up in court by their actions. | | | |
| Trust Response on 13:49 - Feb 13 with 5624 views | TenbySwan |
Looks like someone has been bad mouthing the Trust.
Don't expect an apology anytime soon from the Daily Fail,
I'm reminded of a story of a discussion in a news room of whether to print a libellous story. The decision on whether or not to print depended on whether the subject had any money to sue the paper or not!
So much for the Leveson inquiry. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 14:04 - Feb 13 with 5527 views | Jonathans_coat |
Fair play, this is staggering in intransigence.
They are stalling for as much time, and expense as possible, fully aware that they have deeper pockets than the trust. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 14:13 - Feb 13 with 5470 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Trust Response on 14:04 - Feb 13 by Jonathans_coat |
Fair play, this is staggering in intransigence.
They are stalling for as much time, and expense as possible, fully aware that they have deeper pockets than the trust. |
Seen that approach of running up the bill a few times where the bigger richer party drains the resources of the smaller entity. |  |
| |
| Trust Response on 14:25 - Feb 13 with 5412 views | Jonathans_coat |
| Trust Response on 14:13 - Feb 13 by JACKMANANDBOY |
Seen that approach of running up the bill a few times where the bigger richer party drains the resources of the smaller entity. |
Indicative of a lack of plausible defence.
All they have left is dirty tricks, filibustering and lies. | | | |
| Trust Response on 14:28 - Feb 13 with 5385 views | westwalesed |
| Trust Response on 14:13 - Feb 13 by JACKMANANDBOY |
Seen that approach of running up the bill a few times where the bigger richer party drains the resources of the smaller entity. |
Then the call needs to go out to Swansea City supporters, and the wider football community, to help fund the legal challenge which is surely needed. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Response on 14:45 - Feb 13 with 5327 views | Badlands |
Darran,
Out of interest, is there a reason why the Trust didn't move ahead with legal proceedings when the 'maximum timeline of three months' expired?
IMHO, and not having knowledge of the complete saga, the meeting should have gone ahead and those not complying with the High Court’s Practice Direction reported with the court to make a decision on any punitive action.
In my experience the consequences for any party falling to comply with policy, statute or court order is a matter for the court and should incur no cost to the reporting agency. I assume this is a standard situation and not subject to some weird FA agreement. |  |
| |
| Trust Response on 14:50 - Feb 13 with 5303 views | jackrmee |
| Trust Response on 14:28 - Feb 13 by westwalesed |
Then the call needs to go out to Swansea City supporters, and the wider football community, to help fund the legal challenge which is surely needed. |
I agree, but this is possibly why they put this story out, to turn those fans/donators against the trust. |  |
| |
| Trust Response on 14:51 - Feb 13 with 5297 views | jackrmee |
| Trust Response on 14:45 - Feb 13 by Badlands |
Darran,
Out of interest, is there a reason why the Trust didn't move ahead with legal proceedings when the 'maximum timeline of three months' expired?
IMHO, and not having knowledge of the complete saga, the meeting should have gone ahead and those not complying with the High Court’s Practice Direction reported with the court to make a decision on any punitive action.
In my experience the consequences for any party falling to comply with policy, statute or court order is a matter for the court and should incur no cost to the reporting agency. I assume this is a standard situation and not subject to some weird FA agreement. |
I believe they were advised by their legal rep that mediation needed to be exhausted first. | |
| |
| Trust Response on 14:52 - Feb 13 with 5293 views | Darran |
| Trust Response on 14:45 - Feb 13 by Badlands |
Darran,
Out of interest, is there a reason why the Trust didn't move ahead with legal proceedings when the 'maximum timeline of three months' expired?
IMHO, and not having knowledge of the complete saga, the meeting should have gone ahead and those not complying with the High Court’s Practice Direction reported with the court to make a decision on any punitive action.
In my experience the consequences for any party falling to comply with policy, statute or court order is a matter for the court and should incur no cost to the reporting agency. I assume this is a standard situation and not subject to some weird FA agreement. |
Why are you asking me?🤷ðŸ¼â€â™‚ï¸ | |
| |
| Trust Response on 15:01 - Feb 13 with 5237 views | PozuelosSideys |
Lets not forget here, it doesnt appear to be the Americans doing this, its the sellers. You can argue the sellers have deep pockets, possibly true, but they are playing a dangerous game. The more cash they sink into this, the worse the financial position they will be in should they lose. Especially if the Americans are drawn in and forced to buyout the Trust shares at PL prices. They will also go after the sellers to recoup losses.
Pressure, pressure, pressure. Keep it up. You can hear a rat scratching at the walls with its claws as the air runs out. |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Trust Response on 15:07 - Feb 13 with 5205 views | jasper_T |
| Trust Response on 15:01 - Feb 13 by PozuelosSideys |
Lets not forget here, it doesnt appear to be the Americans doing this, its the sellers. You can argue the sellers have deep pockets, possibly true, but they are playing a dangerous game. The more cash they sink into this, the worse the financial position they will be in should they lose. Especially if the Americans are drawn in and forced to buyout the Trust shares at PL prices. They will also go after the sellers to recoup losses.
Pressure, pressure, pressure. Keep it up. You can hear a rat scratching at the walls with its claws as the air runs out. |
"It should also be noted that it became clear in the last week that neither of the managing partners of the majority shareholders, Steve Kaplan or Jason Levien, were planning to attend the proposed February mediation dates either, in spite of the Trust having made it clear that the attendance of one of them was vital if the Trust was to commit to spending thousands of pounds on a mediation. " | | | |
| Trust Response on 15:11 - Feb 13 with 5174 views | waynekerr55 |
 |  |
| |
| Trust Response on 15:12 - Feb 13 with 5167 views | wobbly |
A robust response. Good work Trust.
The sellers continue to demonstrate what a bunch of venal c*nts they all are. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 15:13 - Feb 13 with 5151 views | QJumpingJack |
It proves Levien has no respect for the Trust or fans.
The statement claims "Huw and others"
Who are the "others" for the record? | | | |
| Trust Response on 15:15 - Feb 13 with 5143 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Response on 14:52 - Feb 13 by Darran |
Why are you asking me?🤷ðŸ¼â€â™‚ï¸ |
Because he appears to be a patsy for one of Gonzo, Dineen and co. | |
| |
| Trust Response on 15:15 - Feb 13 with 5142 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Trust Response on 15:13 - Feb 13 by QJumpingJack |
It proves Levien has no respect for the Trust or fans.
The statement claims "Huw and others"
Who are the "others" for the record? |
I haven't read the release in detail, just scanned through, still in work at the mo. Why does it implicate Levein in any way? From what I can see it's a direct retaliation to the Daily Mail article this morning, which was instigated by Huw and the other selling shareholders. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 15:16 - Feb 13 with 5137 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Response on 14:51 - Feb 13 by jackrmee |
I believe they were advised by their legal rep that mediation needed to be exhausted first. |
Is the correct answer for anyone who bothers to look at the facts | |
| |
| Trust Response on 15:16 - Feb 13 with 5137 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Trust Response on 15:07 - Feb 13 by jasper_T |
"It should also be noted that it became clear in the last week that neither of the managing partners of the majority shareholders, Steve Kaplan or Jason Levien, were planning to attend the proposed February mediation dates either, in spite of the Trust having made it clear that the attendance of one of them was vital if the Trust was to commit to spending thousands of pounds on a mediation. " |
Neither would i if i had already taken my own legal advice who advised me that i hadnt done anything wrong and the fault lays with the selling party.
Arent there all sorts of documents and minutes missing from all the discussions they had also?
May be entirely wrong here, but imo they are just watching the car crash from afar until its time they were dragged in | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Trust Response on 15:19 - Feb 13 with 5119 views | jasper_T |
| Trust Response on 15:13 - Feb 13 by QJumpingJack |
It proves Levien has no respect for the Trust or fans.
The statement claims "Huw and others"
Who are the "others" for the record? |
The Morgans, Dineen, Katzen, Crevoiserat, van Zweden and Robert Davies iirc. | | | |
| Trust Response on 15:20 - Feb 13 with 5110 views | jasper_T |
| Trust Response on 15:16 - Feb 13 by PozuelosSideys |
Neither would i if i had already taken my own legal advice who advised me that i hadnt done anything wrong and the fault lays with the selling party.
Arent there all sorts of documents and minutes missing from all the discussions they had also?
May be entirely wrong here, but imo they are just watching the car crash from afar until its time they were dragged in |
If you haven't done anything wrong you set out your case to the other party and sit down to mediation to settle things without having to go to court, which is expensive and often unnecessary. | | | |
| Trust Response on 15:21 - Feb 13 with 5100 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Response on 15:19 - Feb 13 by jasper_T |
The Morgans, Dineen, Katzen, Crevoiserat, van Zweden and Robert Davies iirc. |
Otherwise known as the sh*tc*nts who were as far removed from 'by fans, for fans' as humanely possible
Tossers. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
