| Trust Response 13:21 - Feb 13 with 13430 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 18:49 - Feb 13 with 2536 views | Badlands |
| Trust Response on 18:42 - Feb 13 by jasper_T |
In mediation those representatives would have to be empowered to make binding decisions for Levein and Kaplan. Otherwise mediation can't accomplish anything and the process is pointless. Just "more talk" as the trust has been criticised for indulging in for the last year or so. |
No binding agreements is going to be made in the initial meeting, and possibly not for several future meetings depending on the complexity of the proposals.
Given the ramifications of any agreement, each side will want to take proposals away and scrutinise them to the Nth degree with, I would hope, specialist legal advisors. |  |
| |
| Trust Response on 18:50 - Feb 13 with 2530 views | BLAZE |
This fella strikes me as the Saul Goodman of sports law. He represents Roberto too - another slimy, backstabbing, two faced Judas
 |  | | |
| Trust Response on 18:54 - Feb 13 with 2506 views | jasper_T |
| Trust Response on 18:49 - Feb 13 by Badlands |
No binding agreements is going to be made in the initial meeting, and possibly not for several future meetings depending on the complexity of the proposals.
Given the ramifications of any agreement, each side will want to take proposals away and scrutinise them to the Nth degree with, I would hope, specialist legal advisors. |
True but if you go in there with no one capable of making decisions you're deliberately making the mediation process more difficult and longer than it might necessarily be. It's an act of bad faith even if it may seem practical.
Each side has already (claimed to have) agreed to propose their cases in writing prior to the first mediation meeting to allow proper preparations. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 19:06 - Feb 13 with 2463 views | Badlands |
| Trust Response on 18:54 - Feb 13 by jasper_T |
True but if you go in there with no one capable of making decisions you're deliberately making the mediation process more difficult and longer than it might necessarily be. It's an act of bad faith even if it may seem practical.
Each side has already (claimed to have) agreed to propose their cases in writing prior to the first mediation meeting to allow proper preparations. |
No decisions will be made in the first meeting.
Ground rules, parameters, checking paperwork, making sure everyone has the same paperwork, making sure there are no surprises and agreeing a timescale and agendas to progress.
Very little will be achieved, not because of belligerence but that's just the way things works. | |
| |
| Trust Response on 19:08 - Feb 13 with 2452 views | WarwickHunt |
Fùck me - what a load of semi-literate arse dribble.
Couldn't they find someone with O level English to write a response? Bunch of two bob cûnts. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 19:10 - Feb 13 with 2440 views | jasper_T |
| Trust Response on 19:06 - Feb 13 by Badlands |
No decisions will be made in the first meeting.
Ground rules, parameters, checking paperwork, making sure everyone has the same paperwork, making sure there are no surprises and agreeing a timescale and agendas to progress.
Very little will be achieved, not because of belligerence but that's just the way things works. |
If Levein and Kaplan empower a representative to agree that stuff for them then it's probably fine but a mediator surely can't look too favourably on a party playing musical chairs and only sending in the main men for the parts of mediation they deem important enough.
It may be sensible and practical but it's still acting in bad faith. | | | |
| Trust Response on 19:21 - Feb 13 with 2398 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Trust Response on 18:49 - Feb 13 by Badlands |
No binding agreements is going to be made in the initial meeting, and possibly not for several future meetings depending on the complexity of the proposals.
Given the ramifications of any agreement, each side will want to take proposals away and scrutinise them to the Nth degree with, I would hope, specialist legal advisors. |
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you work for IPS law? [Post edited 13 Feb 2019 19:22]
|  |
| |
| Trust Response on 19:23 - Feb 13 with 2388 views | chad |
| Trust Response on 19:06 - Feb 13 by Badlands |
No decisions will be made in the first meeting.
Ground rules, parameters, checking paperwork, making sure everyone has the same paperwork, making sure there are no surprises and agreeing a timescale and agendas to progress.
Very little will be achieved, not because of belligerence but that's just the way things works. |
Or you could work efficiently and sort the admin beforehand
That’s just the way things work !!!
This is not an episode of yes minister |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Response on 19:24 - Feb 13 with 2375 views | jackrmee |
| Trust Response on 15:25 - Feb 13 by JACKMANANDBOY |
IPS Law handled the sale for the sellouts, they are at the heart of the dispute, poor work by the DM not to realise this. By the look of it this is a small legal firm.
https://ipslaw.co.uk/about-us
[Post edited 13 Feb 2019 15:49]
|
IPS LAw are the firm run by that Farnell, who bullied Mr Penney out of the club. Interesting.
"Mr Penny initially refused to resign and alleges Mr Farnell "threatened" him and told him: "If we have to, we will get rid of you anyway."
Swansea refuted the claim, arguing Mr Penny's grievance was based on a personal disagreement with Mr Farnell and the feeling Mr Farnell's legal firm, IPS Law, was getting more work with Swansea than Mr Penny's former firm, JCP Solicitors.
Representing Swansea, Jamie Jenkins said: "You were keen for work to go to your old firm rather than Mr Farnell's firm.
"The reason why you say Mr Farnell intimidated you was because you did not like him and he was taking work away from your firm."
Mr Penny said that was "not true"."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-42316763 |  |
| |
| Trust Response on 19:26 - Feb 13 with 2366 views | jackrmee |
| Trust Response on 15:32 - Feb 13 by JACKMANANDBOY |
I think another mediation date would help here, if the sellouts and or Levien don't turn up then the Trust has tried enough to mediate? |
I think they've tried several times | |
| |
| Trust Response on 19:37 - Feb 13 with 2308 views | jackrmee |
| Trust Response on 18:49 - Feb 13 by Badlands |
No binding agreements is going to be made in the initial meeting, and possibly not for several future meetings depending on the complexity of the proposals.
Given the ramifications of any agreement, each side will want to take proposals away and scrutinise them to the Nth degree with, I would hope, specialist legal advisors. |
I thought there are only 2 meetings planned? End of Feb and a couple of days later on 1st or 2nd March? | |
| |
| Trust Response on 19:42 - Feb 13 with 2293 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Trust Response on 19:37 - Feb 13 by jackrmee |
I thought there are only 2 meetings planned? End of Feb and a couple of days later on 1st or 2nd March? |
Mediation was planned for 28 February and 1 March. | |
| |
| Trust Response on 20:07 - Feb 13 with 2254 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Response on 19:21 - Feb 13 by exiledclaseboy |
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you work for IPS law? [Post edited 13 Feb 2019 19:22]
|
Have you seen them on Twitter? What a car crash this is turning into.
Fúcking delicious [Post edited 13 Feb 2019 20:07]
|  |
| |
| Trust Response on 20:13 - Feb 13 with 2231 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Response on 18:49 - Feb 13 by Badlands |
No binding agreements is going to be made in the initial meeting, and possibly not for several future meetings depending on the complexity of the proposals.
Given the ramifications of any agreement, each side will want to take proposals away and scrutinise them to the Nth degree with, I would hope, specialist legal advisors. |
 | | | |
| Trust Response on 20:20 - Feb 13 with 2208 views | monmouth |
 |  |
| |
| Trust Response on 21:51 - Feb 13 with 2073 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Trust Response on 16:17 - Feb 13 by chad |
Not done anything wrong well.....
Their actions put a major shareholder (the Trust) in a massively disadvantaged position post sale. Such that a top legal Counsel in these matters has said we have a strong case for unfair prejudice. A strong case is about the highest recommendation any Counsel would put there considerable reputations on in a case. The most likely outcome of winning such a case would be the requirement to purchase our shares for the price at the time of the sale (£21m +).
Also:
They have repeatedly excluded the Trust and even apologised for it then done the same again.
They agreed to a deal that was massively beneficial to them, then unilaterally pulled out of it.
Plus from there own mouths in that taped Trust meeting they attended almost 2 years ago...
They admitted agreeing with the sellouts to keep the Trust out of the sale. This was in the period where the deal was sewn up between them. (They denied collusion but the actions they admitted to were most definitely that).
Let us think about that for a minute they colluded against their future main shareholding partners to exclude them whilst the sale agreements were sewn up between them.
Then they knowingly concluded a sale in knowledge of a pre existing (and previously adhered to by all shareholding parties) shareholder agreement whose contractual requirements in relation to any share sale had not been adhered to. In fact they made stuttering and conflicting statements about this, from initially agreeing they knew nothing about it, to the saying they had asked for a copy. (Um and you concluded the sale without following that up - plus the Trust subsequently confirmed they had supplied them with a copy pre sale).
They also took responsibility for the Bob Bradley fiasco
They also made it clear that Huw was their man and they had full faith in him, despite the many and varied concerns raised about his ability, performance and character. As they now admit (and is plain to see) that has not worked out. |
Making poor decisions on the football side - ie transfers and Bobbly etc are a different matter. Yes it sucks as fans, but thats football im afraid, its not perfect. Thats a separate piece though.
Anyway, back to the main post. You could well be spot on about their behaviours and lack of engagement with the Trust etc. However, i have an inkling that they feel they are a third party who have been part of a duplicitous charade alonsgide the Trust. Different way, but shafted by the Sellers. My instinct is that they will also play dumb and maintain they knew nothing - ideally watching and waiting til the Sellers walk into something of their own making.
This whole thing stinks like a Used Car Salesman palming of his banger to a clueless punter "yes sir, wonderful little motor this. Only a few thousand miles on the clock. Service history in the post" etc etc
Personally i want the Sellers hung out to dry so possibly am giving the Yanks too much benefit of the doubt. We could really do without the additional upheaval at the club.
However, its an exceptionally tangled web, so i tend to keep the Yanks and Sellers apart and as two separate issues. Perhaps thats naive on my part, but i know where my vitriol lays and it isnt across the Atlantic. At least not yet anyway! |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Trust Response on 22:58 - Feb 13 with 1972 views | longlostjack |
| Trust Response on 21:51 - Feb 13 by PozuelosSideys |
Making poor decisions on the football side - ie transfers and Bobbly etc are a different matter. Yes it sucks as fans, but thats football im afraid, its not perfect. Thats a separate piece though.
Anyway, back to the main post. You could well be spot on about their behaviours and lack of engagement with the Trust etc. However, i have an inkling that they feel they are a third party who have been part of a duplicitous charade alonsgide the Trust. Different way, but shafted by the Sellers. My instinct is that they will also play dumb and maintain they knew nothing - ideally watching and waiting til the Sellers walk into something of their own making.
This whole thing stinks like a Used Car Salesman palming of his banger to a clueless punter "yes sir, wonderful little motor this. Only a few thousand miles on the clock. Service history in the post" etc etc
Personally i want the Sellers hung out to dry so possibly am giving the Yanks too much benefit of the doubt. We could really do without the additional upheaval at the club.
However, its an exceptionally tangled web, so i tend to keep the Yanks and Sellers apart and as two separate issues. Perhaps thats naive on my part, but i know where my vitriol lays and it isnt across the Atlantic. At least not yet anyway! |
Sorry Poz - but you’re being very naive if you think the Yanks are naive. |  |
| |
| Trust Response on 23:02 - Feb 13 with 1957 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Trust Response on 22:58 - Feb 13 by longlostjack |
Sorry Poz - but you’re being very naive if you think the Yanks are naive. |
Could well be! It would be a welcome (and hilarious) turn of events though if it turns out they were unaware of the shinnangans! | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Trust Response on 23:43 - Feb 13 with 1885 views | jasper_T |
| Trust Response on 22:58 - Feb 13 by longlostjack |
Sorry Poz - but you’re being very naive if you think the Yanks are naive. |
They've been naive to the tune of tens of millions of quid lost on their investment so far. | | | |
| Trust Response on 00:10 - Feb 14 with 1841 views | Jonathans_coat |
In the last 3 paragraphs of this “statement”, are IPS genuinely arguing that the Trust are showing bad faith by refusing their “precondition” that they will be bound to any agreement proposed by their negotiator, but then in the following paragraph stating they (the sellers) are refusing to mediate if “subjected to unnecessary preconditions”?
This is a pretty weak and self defeating arguement, no?
Also, surely the trust cannot be “bound” to any agreement made with thier negotiator without consulting with their members? So this arguement makes no sense anyway. Even without considering the poor grammar, procedural misunderstandings and general f***wittery of their response, surely IPS legal cannot be as amateurish as they appear can they? [Post edited 14 Feb 2019 0:17]
|  | | |
| Trust Response on 02:24 - Feb 14 with 1754 views | wobbly |
| Trust Response on 00:10 - Feb 14 by Jonathans_coat |
In the last 3 paragraphs of this “statement”, are IPS genuinely arguing that the Trust are showing bad faith by refusing their “precondition” that they will be bound to any agreement proposed by their negotiator, but then in the following paragraph stating they (the sellers) are refusing to mediate if “subjected to unnecessary preconditions”?
This is a pretty weak and self defeating arguement, no?
Also, surely the trust cannot be “bound” to any agreement made with thier negotiator without consulting with their members? So this arguement makes no sense anyway. Even without considering the poor grammar, procedural misunderstandings and general f***wittery of their response, surely IPS legal cannot be as amateurish as they appear can they? [Post edited 14 Feb 2019 0:17]
|
You do have to hope, for IPS Law's sake, that they stand by their final sentence and make no further public comment. Embarrassing. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 06:28 - Feb 14 with 1678 views | Phil_S |
Everybody knows that the trust couldn't agree any deal on mediation just take the option gained from mediation and added to the other options already available
To do otherwise would involve a mediation table of 1500+ people |  | | |
| Trust Response on 07:13 - Feb 14 with 1643 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Response on 02:24 - Feb 14 by wobbly |
You do have to hope, for IPS Law's sake, that they stand by their final sentence and make no further public comment. Embarrassing. |
Sadly for them (and great for us) the useless cúnts have been tweeting and further made themselves look foolish. | |
| |
| Trust Response on 07:14 - Feb 14 with 1640 views | Jinxy |
It's nice that the Beeb have run with a factual account of this latest attempt at misleading the public. They may be slower, but can usually be trusted to check their facts before publication. Any sane minded person (including those potentially involved with future litigation) will surely take more note of BBC accounts rather than some online gossip rag, that's if they take note of anecdotal evidence at all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47223722 |  | | |
| Trust Response on 07:15 - Feb 14 with 1640 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Response on 06:28 - Feb 14 by Phil_S |
Everybody knows that the trust couldn't agree any deal on mediation just take the option gained from mediation and added to the other options already available
To do otherwise would involve a mediation table of 1500+ people |
I'm enjoying the fact that these thick cúnts are paying for representation by thick cúnts | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
