| Conflict of interest 05:10 - Feb 22 with 24066 views | Loyal |
It was mentioned the other day Phil running the site and being on the trust was a conflict of interest.
I can't find any response by E20 after alleging there was. Probably me. Is there a link ? |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |  |
| Conflict of interest on 22:51 - Feb 28 with 1551 views | jacksfullaces |
I thought the Trust was just a bunch of retired teachers and a few well meaning volunteers.
This thread portrays them like the cast of Game of Thrones.
An amusing read. (Game of Thrones, not this thread so much) |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 22:54 - Feb 28 with 1537 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 22:51 - Feb 28 by jacksfullaces |
I thought the Trust was just a bunch of retired teachers and a few well meaning volunteers.
This thread portrays them like the cast of Game of Thrones.
An amusing read. (Game of Thrones, not this thread so much) |
Teachers can lie and act in self preserving interest too. It’s probably very common. You don’t have to be a Lannister for that. |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 23:40 - Feb 28 with 1451 views | Uxbridge |
Fun thread as ever. One can't help not the cyclical nature of such threads, usually after certain parties have been put onto the ropes. A common theme of the last 3 or so years.
I probably should respond to Sprattys's suggestion that the best way to ensure balance is brought to the consultation documentation is for her, or others with similarly strong but differing views, to be involved in drafting it. Have to say I think it's a silly idea - not only is there zero chance of the process being productive, it's also, contrary to the view, bad business practice. You don't seek to put together a document viewed as consentual to the masses by canvassing the extremes. It's like trying to solve Brexit by getting Rees Mogg and Caroline Lucas in the same room and get them to hammer it out. I exaggerate but the point remains. It wouldnt work. The Board has a fair amount of balance to it these days, and certainly a mix of views. Would seem strange to me that those who were elected by the members weren't trusted with this task.
Oh, and what Phil said. Noone forced anyone out of the Trust, which is what I actually said. I dare say advice was sought, and of course conversations would have been had. Doesnt mean that it wasn't his own decision though. I remember the sadness at the time. These are real people trying to do their best after all. I remember it wasn't just one person who had had enough at that point in time. Read the messages from back then and remember how toxic the atmosphere was. It was a nasty time, and frankly it still resurfaces at times. Quite a few good people have suffered in that regard. |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 23:43 - Feb 28 with 1437 views | chad |
| Conflict of interest on 21:25 - Feb 28 by builthjack |
Is that all? |
Actually no but as you are here what do you think of interested members reviewing the consultation document to identify any specific pros and cons not properly covered, just to avoid the many accusations of bias (including strongly worded ones from LIsa as in her reply to me) from being repeated this time?
Of course it would need to be brief and the Board would have the final say on what was included but could not do that in ignorance of the fact that a member from whatever side of the argument had raised a concern.
Also (and sorry to go on) but could you point out anywhere in my post where I accused Lisa of being a liar as she asserts, as I am at a loss to find any such accusation in my post.
Many thanks |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 00:48 - Mar 1 with 1391 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 23:40 - Feb 28 by Uxbridge |
Fun thread as ever. One can't help not the cyclical nature of such threads, usually after certain parties have been put onto the ropes. A common theme of the last 3 or so years.
I probably should respond to Sprattys's suggestion that the best way to ensure balance is brought to the consultation documentation is for her, or others with similarly strong but differing views, to be involved in drafting it. Have to say I think it's a silly idea - not only is there zero chance of the process being productive, it's also, contrary to the view, bad business practice. You don't seek to put together a document viewed as consentual to the masses by canvassing the extremes. It's like trying to solve Brexit by getting Rees Mogg and Caroline Lucas in the same room and get them to hammer it out. I exaggerate but the point remains. It wouldnt work. The Board has a fair amount of balance to it these days, and certainly a mix of views. Would seem strange to me that those who were elected by the members weren't trusted with this task.
Oh, and what Phil said. Noone forced anyone out of the Trust, which is what I actually said. I dare say advice was sought, and of course conversations would have been had. Doesnt mean that it wasn't his own decision though. I remember the sadness at the time. These are real people trying to do their best after all. I remember it wasn't just one person who had had enough at that point in time. Read the messages from back then and remember how toxic the atmosphere was. It was a nasty time, and frankly it still resurfaces at times. Quite a few good people have suffered in that regard. |
So just to confirm, are you saying that nobody in a prominent Trust position told HC that he had to resign? Think carefully before you answer, although I strongly suspect you won’t even reply. There are some very misleading and carefully worded tip-toed comments from board members on this thread.
Simple statement, simple question - should be a very simple answer. Telling someone they have to resign is not advice. Whether you believe he then resigned of his own accord is completely irrelevant, that’s not what is being put to anyone.
Also can you explain your accusation in your opening paragraph? There seems to be a Trust based theme there where anyone who expresses a valid concern is doing so as part of an alliance with former shareholders it seems a cheap and very transparent way to curry favour as opposed to addressing the issue..
So in short - How can me noting that the Trust is continuing to lie and recently also indulged in their favourite silencing games benefit anyone other than the victims of these?
Surely you realise that the people you are putting this odd accusation to were the very ones imploring the Trust to take legal action when it was falling over itself to do everything in its power to do the opposite?
You are here today not because you chose to join our thinking but because you were forced to after the deal was removed from the table. WE are the ones that wanted legal action, YOU were brought here kicking and screaming and arrive here by default. So how does the accusation even make any form of sense? [Post edited 1 Mar 2019 5:22]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 06:10 - Mar 1 with 1319 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Conflict of interest on 21:07 - Feb 28 by Phil_S |
I think its probably time to kill the myths just to try and bring it to a close.
Nobody has EVER been banned from here for disagreeing from the Trust. Those that have been banned will tell you that is the very reason they have been banned. But it's simply not. If it were the case then anyone who posted disagreeing would be banned. They aren't. Go figure.
Huw Cooze resigned from the Trust. The 'evidence' of otherwise has been shared with all three people, all three have pointed out that it doesn't prove what is being suggested but it is being ignored. People can choose to believe otherwise but I remember the conversation and Huw himself says that he resigned. Again, people can choose to believe otherwise (and I have no doubt that they will post to say so) but the fact remains that is what happened. Did I agree with his decision? Yes I did totally (and that will be no surprise to him) but it was with the same heavy heart when we had the conversation.
Is any of this discussion helping? Of course it is, it is helping those that people want to take legal action against. i find that very odd indeed. But indeed as I said earlier in the thread, go figure.
To those that will want to reply, feel free but the above will not be a change in view from me so I won't spend my time posting the same thing over and over using different words (sound familiar) and - much like Lisa - continually being called a liar and having integrity questioned is tiresome in the extreme and that is without the legal side that is reasonably obvious from making such accusations.
To the point that was made of setting up another forum to air the views then go ahead or use one of the excellent ones already available.
And finally, the decision on who can or cannot post on a website is the decision of the site owner (fansnetwork) and the people entrusted with providing the moderation of their sites. Ultimately the name www.planetswans.co.uk is owned by me ad whether you want to agree or not that means I can make the calls as to who can post or who can't. Or at least what usernames can or cannot post. But nobody will ever be banned for disagreeing with a Trust stance (oh and for the record Lisa and I had quite a frank exchange of views several times over the previous vote and also a few discussions in her early days on the board, she and i are in a very similar place on what should happen next)
So there you have it, over to the last word to have the last word I will read with great amusement the absolute novel that I read at some point (oh and for the record I dont generally check this website at 630 unless it has been targetted by the spambots that we used to get,just another myth that people make up)
Have a good evening - anybody fancy some football chat |
Phil, has anyone been banned for disagreeing WITH the trust though ? (as opposed to disagreeing from it) ?  |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 06:11 - Mar 1 with 1319 views | waynekerr55 |
| Conflict of interest on 21:35 - Feb 28 by Phil_S |
This is right I am totally minted
Even the post you made in response probably put upwards of £37.80 into my pocket. Double that now as I responded.
Now lets think this through logically. This thread is currently on around 7000 views in total. Given all the server costs of the network etc and the two adverts on the page I am looking at which are clearly placed by an agency (who in itself will be taking a cut from any income) how much do you think it makes.
The site gets around 1.5m page views per month. Do you think that makes a fortune.
Trust me if there was money to be made on the site then I would spend time lovingly maintaining it and doing that rather than spending on average 80-100 nights a year away from home.
Next myth please
This post has been edited by an administrator |
But, but, but, in JTAK it said that this website makes you lots of money Phil. |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 08:10 - Mar 1 with 1255 views | Phil_S |
| Conflict of interest on 06:10 - Mar 1 by Brynmill_Jack |
Phil, has anyone been banned for disagreeing WITH the trust though ? (as opposed to disagreeing from it) ? |
Damn you picked up on that  |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Conflict of interest on 08:15 - Mar 1 with 1252 views | Chief |
Why in 2019 does it really matter how Huw Cooze left the trust then? |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 08:20 - Mar 1 with 1240 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 08:15 - Mar 1 by Chief |
Why in 2019 does it really matter how Huw Cooze left the trust then? |
Because it was in 2019 that it came to light that in 2019 the Trust are continuing to lie about it and in 2019 the Trust are still silencing opposing views as they have pretty much always done.
I think any fan of the club that has even a passing interest in the plight of the club should be concerned by the deceiving nature of people that are tasked with protecting fan interests. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 09:11 - Mar 1 with 1199 views | Chief |
| Conflict of interest on 08:20 - Mar 1 by The_E20 |
Because it was in 2019 that it came to light that in 2019 the Trust are continuing to lie about it and in 2019 the Trust are still silencing opposing views as they have pretty much always done.
I think any fan of the club that has even a passing interest in the plight of the club should be concerned by the deceiving nature of people that are tasked with protecting fan interests. |
Does it matter who's version of events you believe though? He needed to go and he did go.
Why all these years later does that matter? The timing is strange. | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 09:19 - Mar 1 with 1190 views | whitemountains |
| Conflict of interest on 09:11 - Mar 1 by Chief |
Does it matter who's version of events you believe though? He needed to go and he did go.
Why all these years later does that matter? The timing is strange. |
I am sure it will all come out in court . | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 09:26 - Mar 1 with 1182 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 09:11 - Mar 1 by Chief |
Does it matter who's version of events you believe though? He needed to go and he did go.
Why all these years later does that matter? The timing is strange. |
To be clear, there are no versions of events, there are just the events that unfolded in reality. That’s it. One version - the only version. That event means that the Trust is continuing to lie to this day and this on top of continuing to ban posters and doctor and shape opinion causing this conflict of interest.
These are recent things, nobody is going back in time and it is anything but strange timing. All timings are in line with what is coming to light. Two versions of the same message were given by said Trust board member, one with the admission that they took time away from the family to tell Huw he had to resign (word for word) the other with it airbrushed out - the first was asked to be kept a secret the latter was allowed to be made public. Does that sound like innocent advice that it now seems to be collaboratively colluded and agreed upon? No.
So Huw resigning is not the point at all. Lovely chap, worked hard, thrown under the bus by the Trust. He probably should have stepped down yes, but no more than the ones that knew and openly lied about it to the fans they were representing. Huws resignation provided the pound of flesh the fans were demanding. This stopped questions being asked and provided welcome respite for those within the Trust that were equally to blame - it turns out the convenient resignation was pushed by those that directly benefited from it - whether he feels it was ultimately his decision is irrelevant.
It shows the organisation that is supposed to represent the fans in a true light - the organisation that is supposed to be open, transparent, honest, working for the fans and puts the club and organisation over self preserving interest. I don’t understand how people can have a go at Huw Jenkins occupying a position within the club due to the takeover 3 years prior but can’t understand why people would be unhappy that people are occupying positions that made similar underhand actions and continue to make them.
Seems awfully selective standards of conduct. Shouldn’t we apply the same standards to all? [Post edited 1 Mar 2019 9:38]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 09:32 - Mar 1 with 1173 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 09:11 - Mar 1 by Chief |
Does it matter who's version of events you believe though? He needed to go and he did go.
Why all these years later does that matter? The timing is strange. |
Also here is another occasion of someone alluding to timing, is this yet another suggestion of collusion or the legal battle? Can you explain what you mean by this? Everybody loves to make the accusation but nobody seems to know what they mean when pushed, it’s just being used as a cheap “if you aren’t with them you are with the sellouts” jibe to excuse yourself from shying away from what is being said.
To reiterate, the Trust is only here at legal action by proxy, after failing to listen to us to take legal action (and indeed doing a whole load of dodgy underhand things in order to avoid it) the Americans took the deal off the table that the Trust desperately fought to complete. They are here simply because that fell through, no other reason. If anyone doesn’t want legal action it is them - WE are the ones who want legal action, remember. The accusations make no sense.
So can you explain what your accusation is? Maybe on Ux or ECB’s behalf who also made similar sweeping, unspecific cowardly jibes that no doubt they would fail to be able to actually explain or specify. [Post edited 1 Mar 2019 10:01]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 10:12 - Mar 1 with 1143 views | Chief |
| Conflict of interest on 09:19 - Mar 1 by whitemountains |
I am sure it will all come out in court . |
What bearing does Huw Coozes situation have on the potential legal proceedings? | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 10:16 - Mar 1 with 1141 views | Chief |
| Conflict of interest on 09:26 - Mar 1 by The_E20 |
To be clear, there are no versions of events, there are just the events that unfolded in reality. That’s it. One version - the only version. That event means that the Trust is continuing to lie to this day and this on top of continuing to ban posters and doctor and shape opinion causing this conflict of interest.
These are recent things, nobody is going back in time and it is anything but strange timing. All timings are in line with what is coming to light. Two versions of the same message were given by said Trust board member, one with the admission that they took time away from the family to tell Huw he had to resign (word for word) the other with it airbrushed out - the first was asked to be kept a secret the latter was allowed to be made public. Does that sound like innocent advice that it now seems to be collaboratively colluded and agreed upon? No.
So Huw resigning is not the point at all. Lovely chap, worked hard, thrown under the bus by the Trust. He probably should have stepped down yes, but no more than the ones that knew and openly lied about it to the fans they were representing. Huws resignation provided the pound of flesh the fans were demanding. This stopped questions being asked and provided welcome respite for those within the Trust that were equally to blame - it turns out the convenient resignation was pushed by those that directly benefited from it - whether he feels it was ultimately his decision is irrelevant.
It shows the organisation that is supposed to represent the fans in a true light - the organisation that is supposed to be open, transparent, honest, working for the fans and puts the club and organisation over self preserving interest. I don’t understand how people can have a go at Huw Jenkins occupying a position within the club due to the takeover 3 years prior but can’t understand why people would be unhappy that people are occupying positions that made similar underhand actions and continue to make them.
Seems awfully selective standards of conduct. Shouldn’t we apply the same standards to all? [Post edited 1 Mar 2019 9:38]
|
So what you are saying is, there are several versions of the event then. Just you are choosing to believe one and trying to say that is the only version. | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 10:17 - Mar 1 with 1139 views | Chief |
| Conflict of interest on 09:32 - Mar 1 by The_E20 |
Also here is another occasion of someone alluding to timing, is this yet another suggestion of collusion or the legal battle? Can you explain what you mean by this? Everybody loves to make the accusation but nobody seems to know what they mean when pushed, it’s just being used as a cheap “if you aren’t with them you are with the sellouts” jibe to excuse yourself from shying away from what is being said.
To reiterate, the Trust is only here at legal action by proxy, after failing to listen to us to take legal action (and indeed doing a whole load of dodgy underhand things in order to avoid it) the Americans took the deal off the table that the Trust desperately fought to complete. They are here simply because that fell through, no other reason. If anyone doesn’t want legal action it is them - WE are the ones who want legal action, remember. The accusations make no sense.
So can you explain what your accusation is? Maybe on Ux or ECB’s behalf who also made similar sweeping, unspecific cowardly jibes that no doubt they would fail to be able to actually explain or specify. [Post edited 1 Mar 2019 10:01]
|
Huw Coozes situation occurred years ago, so why the big infatuation with the (Largely irrelevant) ins and outs of it now? | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 10:21 - Mar 1 with 1132 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 10:16 - Mar 1 by Chief |
So what you are saying is, there are several versions of the event then. Just you are choosing to believe one and trying to say that is the only version. |
I am choosing to believe what the Trust board member in question clearly wrote. I broke time off from my family to tell Huw he had to resign. Word for word. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 10:22 - Mar 1 with 1132 views | jasper_T |
| Conflict of interest on 10:12 - Mar 1 by Chief |
What bearing does Huw Coozes situation have on the potential legal proceedings? |
He was the Trust representative on the board at the time of the alleged dirty dealings, so surely his situation has some relevance. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 10:23 - Mar 1 with 1131 views | Chief |
| Conflict of interest on 10:21 - Mar 1 by The_E20 |
I am choosing to believe what the Trust board member in question clearly wrote. I broke time off from my family to tell Huw he had to resign. Word for word. |
That accounts for one of the versions. There are others. | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 10:25 - Mar 1 with 1121 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 10:17 - Mar 1 by Chief |
Huw Coozes situation occurred years ago, so why the big infatuation with the (Largely irrelevant) ins and outs of it now? |
Because it is being lied about in the present day. I’ve explained this to you once. This on top of other underhand and sneaky actions by them.
Do you think Jenkins should be held accountable for anything he said 3 years ago? Most people would say yes. If Jenkins was continuing to lie about those things and act in other underhand way do you think he should be held accountable? Again most would say yes.
So why do we accept this behaviour from the Trust? It seems odd we have different standards of conduct depending on who is in the frame. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 10:28 - Mar 1 with 1113 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 10:23 - Mar 1 by Chief |
That accounts for one of the versions. There are others. |
Surely the only version that counts is from the one that said it? All others are irrelevant. Are you saying that Trust board member lied and he really didn’t break time off with his family to tell Cooze he had to resign?
You do realise that you are saying either way, the Trust is lying right? [Post edited 1 Mar 2019 10:32]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 10:31 - Mar 1 with 1100 views | Chief |
| Conflict of interest on 10:25 - Mar 1 by The_E20 |
Because it is being lied about in the present day. I’ve explained this to you once. This on top of other underhand and sneaky actions by them.
Do you think Jenkins should be held accountable for anything he said 3 years ago? Most people would say yes. If Jenkins was continuing to lie about those things and act in other underhand way do you think he should be held accountable? Again most would say yes.
So why do we accept this behaviour from the Trust? It seems odd we have different standards of conduct depending on who is in the frame. |
Well if it's been lied about in the present day, unless someone's version has changed, I assume you think the incident has been lied about since HC left the trust years ago.
So again, why now in March 2019 has this been dragged up? What sparked it off again now? | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 10:35 - Mar 1 with 1091 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 10:31 - Mar 1 by Chief |
Well if it's been lied about in the present day, unless someone's version has changed, I assume you think the incident has been lied about since HC left the trust years ago.
So again, why now in March 2019 has this been dragged up? What sparked it off again now? |
Trust member wrote that he went out of his way and told Cooze he had to resign, but the recipient of the mail was asked to keep that a secret. That email is still available to view to this day.
Trust narrative of present day was that nobody within the Trust told Huw he had to resign.
That second bit is not a version of events, it is a lie, simply because of the existence of the first line. [Post edited 1 Mar 2019 10:43]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 10:37 - Mar 1 with 1088 views | waynekerr55 |
| Conflict of interest on 10:35 - Mar 1 by The_E20 |
Trust member wrote that he went out of his way and told Cooze he had to resign, but the recipient of the mail was asked to keep that a secret. That email is still available to view to this day.
Trust narrative of present day was that nobody within the Trust told Huw he had to resign.
That second bit is not a version of events, it is a lie, simply because of the existence of the first line. [Post edited 1 Mar 2019 10:43]
|
This isn't me being provocative E20, but if this is the case ask your source to share the email to prove this. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
