| Trust meeting tonight 20:37 - Feb 17 with 7066 views | KeithHaynes |
Plenty of opinions from those who have never done anything.
Makes me laugh.
A lot.
Criticising from a position of after the event.
When at the end of the day they did nothing in the first place.
Mind you half of those that did ...
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Trust meeting tonight on 10:08 - Feb 19 with 1633 views | shaggyrogers |
| Trust meeting tonight on 22:18 - Feb 18 by waynekerr55 |
Just some points of order here and with other aspects of this thread:
- the only things certain in life are death and taxes. So a circa 70-30 outcome is quite high
- I've seen comments here that "a competent QC would wipe the floor with the Trust" if that was so why did the defendents look at having separate legal teams
- I can only speak for myself but I would have chipped in
Not that any of this matters anymore, but let's conduct this in reality |
Point of order.
70-30 chance for the trust is correct. But what were the odds of the judge ruling to sell all shares or some of them ? What were the odds of the judge valuing the shares at 2016 prices or 2022 prices or even 2025 prices if it took three years to get to court. Imagine if the ruling was that 21% of shares sold at 2022 prices. Then give the funders their cut and what might be left ? A few million in the bank and no shareholding at all.
I was told the sellers had one legal team between them. Surely they could not have the same legal team as the buyers as well. I don't think that could happen |  | | |
| Trust meeting tonight on 10:09 - Feb 19 with 1628 views | shaggyrogers |
| Trust meeting tonight on 09:51 - Feb 19 by waynekerr55 |
And special mention for the shareholders agreement that was responsible for the trust not getting 25%, didn't exist, wasn't valid because BVS hadn't signed it and the Gonzo's solicitors asked the Trust to waive.
We see you... |
Weren't there others that had not signed it as well. I'm pretty sure it wasn't just one party ? | | | |
| Trust meeting tonight on 10:19 - Feb 19 with 1614 views | KeithHaynes |
| Trust meeting tonight on 22:18 - Feb 18 by waynekerr55 |
Just some points of order here and with other aspects of this thread:
- the only things certain in life are death and taxes. So a circa 70-30 outcome is quite high
- I've seen comments here that "a competent QC would wipe the floor with the Trust" if that was so why did the defendents look at having separate legal teams
- I can only speak for myself but I would have chipped in
Not that any of this matters anymore, but let's conduct this in reality |
That’s the issue, whose reality matters most, and what is the agenda 👠| |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 10:31 - Feb 19 with 1593 views | max936 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 09:54 - Feb 19 by QJumpingJack |
In 2001 the fan base was united vs Tony Petty. Maybe the strongest it has ever been.
Today the fan base is very much split. Certain individuals will be smiling at the "Divide and Conquer" approach. |
Not gonna disagree with that. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 11:34 - Feb 19 with 1546 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 10:09 - Feb 19 by shaggyrogers |
Weren't there others that had not signed it as well. I'm pretty sure it wasn't just one party ? |
It may well have been but IIRC one of the defences was that it wasn't signed so null and void (despite the clause being enacted to ensure Mel Nurse's shares were divvied up as per the (apparently imaginary) SHA that Gonzo went on record asking the Trust to waive |  |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 00:07 - Feb 20 with 1428 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 10:31 - Feb 19 by max936 |
Not gonna disagree with that. |
The Trust will always be divided . 1000+ members all with their own views. Sadly the majority view was the wrong one more than once. It is necessary sometimes to rigorously go through the argument.
Even on this website fake narratives are often repeated by not analysed and taken as fact.
The Trust were sitting on a 10,000% mark up on their investment and 95% of their holding in a 'super high risk' field. Selling was an absolute "no brainer" but the board of the Trust did not act because the members did not make them listen and act.
The so called smart people had to do this. The people with qualifications and a shrewdness with money. Bad decisions might end up costing the Trust up to £15m. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 09:22 - Feb 20 with 1379 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 00:07 - Feb 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust will always be divided . 1000+ members all with their own views. Sadly the majority view was the wrong one more than once. It is necessary sometimes to rigorously go through the argument.
Even on this website fake narratives are often repeated by not analysed and taken as fact.
The Trust were sitting on a 10,000% mark up on their investment and 95% of their holding in a 'super high risk' field. Selling was an absolute "no brainer" but the board of the Trust did not act because the members did not make them listen and act.
The so called smart people had to do this. The people with qualifications and a shrewdness with money. Bad decisions might end up costing the Trust up to £15m. |
What you mean is that the trust didn't sell because they wouldn't accept a deal interior to what the sellouts received. Other offers were quickly changed and then rescinded by the Americans.
But of course you completely ignore these facts. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 12:55 - Feb 20 with 1320 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 09:22 - Feb 20 by Chief |
What you mean is that the trust didn't sell because they wouldn't accept a deal interior to what the sellouts received. Other offers were quickly changed and then rescinded by the Americans.
But of course you completely ignore these facts. |
What I don't get is the fact that the door has shut on anything, surely now is the time for a bit of honesty? Nobody of sound mind could criticise cashing in, it's the way it was done coupled with hanging around, drawing salaries and perks. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust meeting tonight on 16:43 - Feb 20 with 1270 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 09:22 - Feb 20 by Chief |
What you mean is that the trust didn't sell because they wouldn't accept a deal interior to what the sellouts received. Other offers were quickly changed and then rescinded by the Americans.
But of course you completely ignore these facts. |
Facts? What are the facts Chief? You claim to know them. If you say the terms are inferior you must know both. The Levien group say the terms were actually better and blame Turst infighting for their withdrawal of the offer. Was the offer ever accepted?
In the 2017 talks please explain what was different to what the Trust were offered and what the sellers accepted in 2016. Facts only. You do not need to give your source. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 08:59 - Feb 21 with 1203 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 16:43 - Feb 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Facts? What are the facts Chief? You claim to know them. If you say the terms are inferior you must know both. The Levien group say the terms were actually better and blame Turst infighting for their withdrawal of the offer. Was the offer ever accepted?
In the 2017 talks please explain what was different to what the Trust were offered and what the sellers accepted in 2016. Facts only. You do not need to give your source. |
If they were better there wouldn't be any basis for a legally viable case which the defendants settled out of court this week. That's a fact. The closest offer they gave to parity with the others they changed the terms of and then rescinded within a few hours.
Think about it. If they'd at any point offered anything on par or better (and given sufficient time to consider) the trust would have no case let alone 70/30 QC endorsed.
You have literally no reason to be disingenuous and play twp anymore farmer boy. [Post edited 21 Feb 2022 9:00]
| |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 16:53 - Feb 21 with 1144 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 08:59 - Feb 21 by Chief |
If they were better there wouldn't be any basis for a legally viable case which the defendants settled out of court this week. That's a fact. The closest offer they gave to parity with the others they changed the terms of and then rescinded within a few hours.
Think about it. If they'd at any point offered anything on par or better (and given sufficient time to consider) the trust would have no case let alone 70/30 QC endorsed.
You have literally no reason to be disingenuous and play twp anymore farmer boy. [Post edited 21 Feb 2022 9:00]
|
To talk about facts but appears to not have any hard information.
Like what was the difference between what was offered to the Seller and what was offered to the Trust in 2017?. I do not even know how you know what was offered to the sellers. That might be confidential information. The buyers say what they offered was better.
The buyer have banged heads together and not paid a bean as far as I can see. Other than Mr Silverstein's time.
You give opinions but do not have the facts. You are not meticulous at all.
The old boys in the Board know the facts but they have all gone. Instead of settling business they concentrated on building court case they could not fund and no one else was willing to fund either.
Your narrative has been found to be completely false as the Trust caved in for a small
goodwill gesture which leaves them only slightly better off. They have a lot of work to do to rebuild trust. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 17:17 - Feb 21 with 1128 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 16:53 - Feb 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
To talk about facts but appears to not have any hard information.
Like what was the difference between what was offered to the Seller and what was offered to the Trust in 2017?. I do not even know how you know what was offered to the sellers. That might be confidential information. The buyers say what they offered was better.
The buyer have banged heads together and not paid a bean as far as I can see. Other than Mr Silverstein's time.
You give opinions but do not have the facts. You are not meticulous at all.
The old boys in the Board know the facts but they have all gone. Instead of settling business they concentrated on building court case they could not fund and no one else was willing to fund either.
Your narrative has been found to be completely false as the Trust caved in for a small
goodwill gesture which leaves them only slightly better off. They have a lot of work to do to rebuild trust. |
The trust chairman at the time has confirmed all this. The trust never received an offer on par with what the sellouts received and the nearest offer had its terms changed and was then rescinded in quick succession. There'd be records of all this and the former trust board members were going to testify in court.
This tally's up with the trust pursuing legal action &the sellouts settling. If the trust had received the same offer as the sellouts & been given time to consider it, they'd literally have no case.
This has been my narrative all along and has been proven true by the settlement which is an admission of guilt. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 19:27 - Feb 21 with 1083 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 17:17 - Feb 21 by Chief |
The trust chairman at the time has confirmed all this. The trust never received an offer on par with what the sellouts received and the nearest offer had its terms changed and was then rescinded in quick succession. There'd be records of all this and the former trust board members were going to testify in court.
This tally's up with the trust pursuing legal action &the sellouts settling. If the trust had received the same offer as the sellouts & been given time to consider it, they'd literally have no case.
This has been my narrative all along and has been proven true by the settlement which is an admission of guilt. |
What the Trust said and what the Trust do seem to be very different things. The members were totally shocked by their capitulation.
You were talking about £21m in a strong case. A settlement of £500,000 tells me the case was not strong at all. No one would fund this strong case. What else is false? Quite a lot I expect. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 19:45 - Feb 21 with 1074 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 19:27 - Feb 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
What the Trust said and what the Trust do seem to be very different things. The members were totally shocked by their capitulation.
You were talking about £21m in a strong case. A settlement of £500,000 tells me the case was not strong at all. No one would fund this strong case. What else is false? Quite a lot I expect. |
I said it was what the trust chairman at the time said, not the trust. And under that regime the trust was democratic, so your conflation tactic hasn't worked.
The QC stated previously it was a strong case and that was backed up by the trust and solicitors on the trust forums last week, so it certainly was evidently a viable case. And this is why the deal was roundly condemned by the members. The large cost of the case has/had little bearing to do with the strength of it, even at 90% odds it would have been expensive owing more to do with the fragmented nature of the defendants legal representation I believe. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 21:26 - Feb 21 with 1016 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 19:45 - Feb 21 by Chief |
I said it was what the trust chairman at the time said, not the trust. And under that regime the trust was democratic, so your conflation tactic hasn't worked.
The QC stated previously it was a strong case and that was backed up by the trust and solicitors on the trust forums last week, so it certainly was evidently a viable case. And this is why the deal was roundly condemned by the members. The large cost of the case has/had little bearing to do with the strength of it, even at 90% odds it would have been expensive owing more to do with the fragmented nature of the defendants legal representation I believe. |
I told you the case looked weak to me and the Trust should accept a nominal compensation / good will payment and move on. The Trust board appear to have agreed.
You were promoting a fake narrative that £21m was a possible result of legal action. Entirely false. You promoted the idea that losing the case would not have any significant effects. False according to the Trust.
Your credibility is now at a very low level with the readership I would imagine. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 21:59 - Feb 21 with 998 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 21:26 - Feb 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I told you the case looked weak to me and the Trust should accept a nominal compensation / good will payment and move on. The Trust board appear to have agreed.
You were promoting a fake narrative that £21m was a possible result of legal action. Entirely false. You promoted the idea that losing the case would not have any significant effects. False according to the Trust.
Your credibility is now at a very low level with the readership I would imagine. |
You pretend to think it was a weak case against all normal logic and legal expertise because for some bizarre reason you are incredibly biased. Yes the weak and terrible board have unfortunately accepted against the wishes of 99% of the membership.
£21mill was a very possible outcome of the QC endorsed case. This has been confirmed by the trust many times following legal advice. This deal the trust has signed is tantamount to giving away some of their percent which could have been a result of losing the case. They've signed up willingly for those significant effects you speak of.
My credibility is very low  . You're the one who still maintains the sellouts/Americans did nothing wrong despite them settling out of court which is an admission of guilt. At least you've still got a sense of humour despite being embarrassed by this outcome. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 22:44 - Feb 21 with 970 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 21:59 - Feb 21 by Chief |
You pretend to think it was a weak case against all normal logic and legal expertise because for some bizarre reason you are incredibly biased. Yes the weak and terrible board have unfortunately accepted against the wishes of 99% of the membership.
£21mill was a very possible outcome of the QC endorsed case. This has been confirmed by the trust many times following legal advice. This deal the trust has signed is tantamount to giving away some of their percent which could have been a result of losing the case. They've signed up willingly for those significant effects you speak of.
My credibility is very low . You're the one who still maintains the sellouts/Americans did nothing wrong despite them settling out of court which is an admission of guilt. At least you've still got a sense of humour despite being embarrassed by this outcome. |
There may be some residual guilt through inadequate care perhaps 0.5m/21m in percentage terms is 2.3%. That sounds about right. They agreed to 2.3% of the value you promoted so enthusiastically.
The people who set them on this course should be ashamed of themselves. Total failure. The SCST will never be trusted again. Consumed by jealousy and small town politics. If they went to Court it would have been a lot worse. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 23:33 - Feb 21 with 957 views | Treforys_Jack |
I've just worked it out, you two are actually Keith arguing with himself to drive up hits, Its the only logical solution why you keep going on and on and on and on and on and on.................. [Post edited 22 Feb 2022 0:47]
|  | | |
| Trust meeting tonight on 07:24 - Feb 22 with 917 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 22:44 - Feb 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
There may be some residual guilt through inadequate care perhaps 0.5m/21m in percentage terms is 2.3%. That sounds about right. They agreed to 2.3% of the value you promoted so enthusiastically.
The people who set them on this course should be ashamed of themselves. Total failure. The SCST will never be trusted again. Consumed by jealousy and small town politics. If they went to Court it would have been a lot worse. |
Well for there to be guilt, they need to have been guilty of something so I'm glad you've finally acknowledged that. And that percentage is only so low because of the brazenness of the sellouts/Americans. They managed to persuade this trust board)I notice they didn't try this deal with the previous one) that they had no choice. Which they did.
Yes the current trust board should be ashamed of themselves. The membership will reduce to very low numbers while this lot are still in post. They are not to trusted.
Well that's entirely the point - if they'd gone to court it probably wouldn't have been a lot worse. You enjoy percentages, but you're ignoring the 70% chance given of a trust win by legal experts who don't say things like that randomly. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 12:38 - Feb 22 with 849 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 07:24 - Feb 22 by Chief |
Well for there to be guilt, they need to have been guilty of something so I'm glad you've finally acknowledged that. And that percentage is only so low because of the brazenness of the sellouts/Americans. They managed to persuade this trust board)I notice they didn't try this deal with the previous one) that they had no choice. Which they did.
Yes the current trust board should be ashamed of themselves. The membership will reduce to very low numbers while this lot are still in post. They are not to trusted.
Well that's entirely the point - if they'd gone to court it probably wouldn't have been a lot worse. You enjoy percentages, but you're ignoring the 70% chance given of a trust win by legal experts who don't say things like that randomly. |
The QC said the case was a 'last resort'. The Board got an offer and did not go for the last resort. Good news.
For you and others the last resort was actually the first resort. You appear to have learned nothing from the debacle and in all probability would gladly do it again. This is why the US people have taken that possibility away. Again good news.
The Trust were given huge privileges and influence but started throwing their weight around and got caught up in "small town politics". The agitators and militants like your go self have been put back in their box and the club is stronger for it. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 12:56 - Feb 22 with 837 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 12:38 - Feb 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The QC said the case was a 'last resort'. The Board got an offer and did not go for the last resort. Good news.
For you and others the last resort was actually the first resort. You appear to have learned nothing from the debacle and in all probability would gladly do it again. This is why the US people have taken that possibility away. Again good news.
The Trust were given huge privileges and influence but started throwing their weight around and got caught up in "small town politics". The agitators and militants like your go self have been put back in their box and the club is stronger for it. |
- The QC going under direction that they'd give in most cases as to not take cases to court that can be settled out of court. You know that. But you conveniently forget it. The twp act in action.
- 5 years of negotiations and attempting to organise things like mediation suggests court action was certainly not the first resort. The only thing to learn from this is how poorly the current board conducted themselves. Which yes does appear to free them from any further legislation. Which is frankly laughable. Free reign to get abused and ignored again in future.
- well that's false, they weren't 'given' influence, it was actively removed by the plot to exclude them in the sale which resulted in them becoming a minor shareholder with other minor shareholders selling out their voting rights. Yes as I say, the current trust board have betrayed the 'agitators' and 'activists' (normal members).
- The club is in no different position ( no conversion plan - still debt/loan) but now has even more powerless supporters trust body who've given up the opportunity to gain a large fund for future use in the club possibly after all the other current shareholders have left this earth. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 14:41 - Feb 23 with 765 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 12:56 - Feb 22 by Chief |
- The QC going under direction that they'd give in most cases as to not take cases to court that can be settled out of court. You know that. But you conveniently forget it. The twp act in action.
- 5 years of negotiations and attempting to organise things like mediation suggests court action was certainly not the first resort. The only thing to learn from this is how poorly the current board conducted themselves. Which yes does appear to free them from any further legislation. Which is frankly laughable. Free reign to get abused and ignored again in future.
- well that's false, they weren't 'given' influence, it was actively removed by the plot to exclude them in the sale which resulted in them becoming a minor shareholder with other minor shareholders selling out their voting rights. Yes as I say, the current trust board have betrayed the 'agitators' and 'activists' (normal members).
- The club is in no different position ( no conversion plan - still debt/loan) but now has even more powerless supporters trust body who've given up the opportunity to gain a large fund for future use in the club possibly after all the other current shareholders have left this earth. |
The Trust view of itself as 'saviour of the club' is fake. It is was it would have £17m plus 5% holding. They were on a pathway to fabulously enrich third party English financial service and legal interests with no interest in the club, Swansea or Wales. You like to quote the QC on £3,000 an hour.
I speculated the fees for a legal win to be of a value of around £7,000,000 and warned you that much of this money would come indirectly from the club. Before action I asked for full s disclosure of fees and costs. You promoted secrecy. This secrecy has bit you on the backside. [Post edited 23 Feb 2022 14:49]
| |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 21:08 - Feb 23 with 730 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 14:41 - Feb 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust view of itself as 'saviour of the club' is fake. It is was it would have £17m plus 5% holding. They were on a pathway to fabulously enrich third party English financial service and legal interests with no interest in the club, Swansea or Wales. You like to quote the QC on £3,000 an hour.
I speculated the fees for a legal win to be of a value of around £7,000,000 and warned you that much of this money would come indirectly from the club. Before action I asked for full s disclosure of fees and costs. You promoted secrecy. This secrecy has bit you on the backside. [Post edited 23 Feb 2022 14:49]
|
- Well the trust had the potential to be the saviour, if required in future.
- the cost of the legal fee has no bearing on that at all, justice doesn't come cheap.
- you speculated a load of things, but your views are so skewed it's difficult to give them any credence. I don't see what difference the costs being made public or not have made any difference to anything. Disclosure of that is completely irrelevant seeing as the board decided against going to court anyway. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 23:52 - Feb 23 with 690 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 21:08 - Feb 23 by Chief |
- Well the trust had the potential to be the saviour, if required in future.
- the cost of the legal fee has no bearing on that at all, justice doesn't come cheap.
- you speculated a load of things, but your views are so skewed it's difficult to give them any credence. I don't see what difference the costs being made public or not have made any difference to anything. Disclosure of that is completely irrelevant seeing as the board decided against going to court anyway. |
You were happy to let them get on with it and get the best deal, and they did. You did not want to be involved in the process so cannot really complain. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 07:03 - Feb 24 with 679 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 23:52 - Feb 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You were happy to let them get on with it and get the best deal, and they did. You did not want to be involved in the process so cannot really complain. |
- You're lying and or making stuff up again.
- I was understanding that commercially sensitive information relating to the funding of the case could not be announced publically.
- I was happy for them to prepare and fulfill for the mandate they had - court. They did not do that.
- the process changed when they started negotiating again and were considering not going to court - at which point every member would have wanted to be involved. But we were all kept in the dark whether we wanted to be or not - being told in every trust update (and in replies when directly contacting them) that preparations for court were ongoing. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
