| No court action? on 21:13 - Feb 15 with 1739 views | ExiledJack |
Time to shut it down. Use the funds to reimburse past and present Trust members, or give the money to charity. |  | |  |
| No court action? on 21:17 - Feb 15 with 1722 views | vetchonian |
| No court action? on 21:13 - Feb 15 by ExiledJack |
Time to shut it down. Use the funds to reimburse past and present Trust members, or give the money to charity. |
give the cash to Resolven he will make it grow so we can buy the club back | |
| |
| No court action? on 21:29 - Feb 15 with 1661 views | majorraglan |
Coming in to this very late, I am flabbergasted this has happened after the previous mandate from the members.
If the landscape had changed to such a degree to warrant a reconsideration of the Trusts mandate to litigate, I’d have thought it should have gone to a meeting where the issues could be discussed and voted upon. | | | |
| No court action? on 21:55 - Feb 15 with 1554 views | Chief |
| No court action? on 21:12 - Feb 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Cash is all that counts. Cash now or cash later. You have confused yourself with two other un-related issued namely.
Protection against dilution (whatever that means)
Giving the sellers a bloody nose. (£500k compo).
You have your protection with the class A shares. They are of no cash value unless you can sell them. I have advised you what to lo out for. "The class A shares can be sold a after x years" . It is a vital piece of fine print.
If the trust cannot ever sell them it is a "timeshare" type deal. |
You're confusing me and yourself by this jibberish you're writing.
This 5% thing is a red herring nothing concession. A symbolic gesture that makes the Americans look like they've acquiesed in some way. |  |
| |
| No court action? on 22:13 - Feb 15 with 1524 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| No court action? on 21:55 - Feb 15 by Chief |
You're confusing me and yourself by this jibberish you're writing.
This 5% thing is a red herring nothing concession. A symbolic gesture that makes the Americans look like they've acquiesed in some way. |
If was a Trust member there is only one question of importance.
Under what circumstances can the 5% "golden" share be sold? Any member has a que to ask this question on Thursday.
If the club was sold in the Premier league at the same price as Burnley it is worth £10,000,000.
I asked you last week Chief. Why do you want "Protection"? |  |
| |
| No court action? on 22:20 - Feb 15 with 1507 views | Chief |
| No court action? on 22:13 - Feb 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
If was a Trust member there is only one question of importance.
Under what circumstances can the 5% "golden" share be sold? Any member has a que to ask this question on Thursday.
If the club was sold in the Premier league at the same price as Burnley it is worth £10,000,000.
I asked you last week Chief. Why do you want "Protection"? |
Well from what I can decipher the trust board have signed this deal without knowing much of the details so I wouldn't expect them to know that to be honest. Not that it matters really, rubbish deal no matter what. Burnley is lightyears away.
I'm not going through this again. It's even less relevant now. The trust's being diluted and now the get out clause has been closed off by the trust board against the wishes of the members. | |
| |
| No court action? on 22:23 - Feb 15 with 1500 views | Boundy |
I'm not pre-empting any future actions by the members but imo the trust have effectively just lost 3/4 of its membership . | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| No court action? on 22:29 - Feb 15 with 1490 views | Chief |
| No court action? on 22:23 - Feb 15 by Boundy |
I'm not pre-empting any future actions by the members but imo the trust have effectively just lost 3/4 of its membership . |
Wouldn't surprise me if it's more judging by the reaction. Across all the mediums there's literally only Felixstowe I've seen who says this is a good deal for the trust. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| No court action? on 22:48 - Feb 15 with 1448 views | builthjack |
If the club is worth £30m, 21% of that is £6.3m.
Disgusting piece of business from the Trust.
Back handers springs to mind. |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| No court action? on 22:49 - Feb 15 with 1444 views | Dr_Parnassus |
What an awful deal, just as bad, if not worse than the last one.
Amazed they didn't consult with what remaining members they had left before accepting though.
They are completely incompetent, which is why I haven't been a member for years and can't ever see that changing.
It seems Randy Andy and the owners will both be celebrating tonight that they could buy their way out of guilt. But does go to show how inept the Trust conveyor belt is. |  |
| |
| No court action? on 23:01 - Feb 15 with 1418 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| No court action? on 22:49 - Feb 15 by Dr_Parnassus |
What an awful deal, just as bad, if not worse than the last one.
Amazed they didn't consult with what remaining members they had left before accepting though.
They are completely incompetent, which is why I haven't been a member for years and can't ever see that changing.
It seems Randy Andy and the owners will both be celebrating tonight that they could buy their way out of guilt. But does go to show how inept the Trust conveyor belt is. |
But last week you wanted 'protection'. I asked you what that meant and you said protection from dilution. The Trust needed to go to court to "protect it being diluted to nothing". Only I asked what does that mean?
5% is protected. Mission accomplished. Members should be happy. What are they going to do with it now.?
If the Trust can never sell it it is a timeshare for the VIP seats. Always beware the timeshare boys. This 5% could be worth a fortune in the long term (if they can sell it). | |
| |
| No court action? on 23:04 - Feb 15 with 1410 views | Boundy |
| No court action? on 22:29 - Feb 15 by Chief |
Wouldn't surprise me if it's more judging by the reaction. Across all the mediums there's literally only Felixstowe I've seen who says this is a good deal for the trust. |
You could be right I think it was over 80% who voted for legal action but if I remember correctly the amount of members who bothered to vote was quite small, 60% ? | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| No court action? on 23:05 - Feb 15 with 1403 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| No court action? on 23:01 - Feb 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
But last week you wanted 'protection'. I asked you what that meant and you said protection from dilution. The Trust needed to go to court to "protect it being diluted to nothing". Only I asked what does that mean?
5% is protected. Mission accomplished. Members should be happy. What are they going to do with it now.?
If the Trust can never sell it it is a timeshare for the VIP seats. Always beware the timeshare boys. This 5% could be worth a fortune in the long term (if they can sell it). |
What do you mean ''I'' wanted protection? I didn't ''want'' anything, I am not a member and not part of the process in any way shape or form.
You asked why the Trust wanted protection, you were answered several times. You asked how they could get it and were answered several times there too. Those answers are still correct and will remain correct until a change to company law.
Not sure what you are talking about really, as I suspect is the same for you.. | |
| |
| No court action? on 23:11 - Feb 15 with 1393 views | guthrieintherain |
| No court action? on 23:05 - Feb 15 by Dr_Parnassus |
What do you mean ''I'' wanted protection? I didn't ''want'' anything, I am not a member and not part of the process in any way shape or form.
You asked why the Trust wanted protection, you were answered several times. You asked how they could get it and were answered several times there too. Those answers are still correct and will remain correct until a change to company law.
Not sure what you are talking about really, as I suspect is the same for you.. |
Is this the reason Jake came over in January.
The Trust has been a laughing stock for sometime even more so since the new board members came in.
But to do this with no mandate from the members is wrong and will see its membeeship decimated.
I knew this was coming membership cancelled. [Post edited 15 Feb 2022 23:12]
| |
| |
| No court action? on 23:30 - Feb 15 with 1355 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| No court action? on 23:05 - Feb 15 by Dr_Parnassus |
What do you mean ''I'' wanted protection? I didn't ''want'' anything, I am not a member and not part of the process in any way shape or form.
You asked why the Trust wanted protection, you were answered several times. You asked how they could get it and were answered several times there too. Those answers are still correct and will remain correct until a change to company law.
Not sure what you are talking about really, as I suspect is the same for you.. |
OK let me re phrase it.
I asked you why the Trust wanted "Protection". Protection from what.? . You said "protection from dilution". The 5% is protected from dilution. They have what they said they wanted.
It has not cost them a penny and they have not lost any shares. The remaining 16% is vulnerable to dilution. £13m has been put into the club. They pay for it in cash share (£2.73m) or in equivalent share percentage (6%). It is how business works.
When the Trust were formed someone should have told the members they might have to put their hands into their pockets to "fix the roof" every now and then. All losses the Trust have suffered is due to relegation and any legal bills they have paid out. Their legal bills have been covered in the settlement. | |
| |
| No court action? on 23:47 - Feb 15 with 1326 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| No court action? on 23:30 - Feb 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
OK let me re phrase it.
I asked you why the Trust wanted "Protection". Protection from what.? . You said "protection from dilution". The 5% is protected from dilution. They have what they said they wanted.
It has not cost them a penny and they have not lost any shares. The remaining 16% is vulnerable to dilution. £13m has been put into the club. They pay for it in cash share (£2.73m) or in equivalent share percentage (6%). It is how business works.
When the Trust were formed someone should have told the members they might have to put their hands into their pockets to "fix the roof" every now and then. All losses the Trust have suffered is due to relegation and any legal bills they have paid out. Their legal bills have been covered in the settlement. |
5% is protected from dilution yes, but they have 21% shares. I don't think your question was regarding part protection, was it?
Remember what ''they'' want is irrelevant, they are the mouthpiece of the members. The members wanted legal action knowing that a likely win would result in a full sale remedy.
They are talking on the other forum of filing a vote of no confidence to overturn the decision. I will be watching that with interest.
How do you know how much the legal costs are? So you have a link I can look at? | |
| |
| No court action? on 00:00 - Feb 16 with 1308 views | guthrieintherain |
| No court action? on 22:23 - Feb 15 by Boundy |
I'm not pre-empting any future actions by the members but imo the trust have effectively just lost 3/4 of its membership . |
I would not be surprised if a new supporters organisation is set up.
The current one are just as bad as the sellouts.
It was pretty obvious what was going on though with Jake coming over and 3 deals going pearshaped on deadline day.
Not that I am complaining about the window the club needs to be sustainable
But it's obvious they hyped the window up to sell more seasons.
And Jakes real reason for being here was to convince the Trust board to do a deal.
I mentioned this at the time if anyone needs Saturdays lottery numbers let me know LOL [Post edited 16 Feb 2022 0:07]
| |
| |
| No court action? on 00:06 - Feb 16 with 1303 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| No court action? on 23:47 - Feb 15 by Dr_Parnassus |
5% is protected from dilution yes, but they have 21% shares. I don't think your question was regarding part protection, was it?
Remember what ''they'' want is irrelevant, they are the mouthpiece of the members. The members wanted legal action knowing that a likely win would result in a full sale remedy.
They are talking on the other forum of filing a vote of no confidence to overturn the decision. I will be watching that with interest.
How do you know how much the legal costs are? So you have a link I can look at? |
I direct you to the Trusts accounts. Obviously not fully up to date. £250k over 3 or 4 years. the £500k should cover it. On the other forum they talked of a surplus of £100k.
The former chairman said they were going to court to "avoid dilution to nothing". They appear to have solved that concern which in my opinion was never a real possibility. | |
| |
| No court action? on 00:12 - Feb 16 with 1277 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| No court action? on 00:06 - Feb 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I direct you to the Trusts accounts. Obviously not fully up to date. £250k over 3 or 4 years. the £500k should cover it. On the other forum they talked of a surplus of £100k.
The former chairman said they were going to court to "avoid dilution to nothing". They appear to have solved that concern which in my opinion was never a real possibility. |
Dilution to nothing is a mathematical impossibility, unfortunately the last Trust chairman regardless of his recent protestations, was just as inept as this one. A deal nearly passed under that leadership too. | |
| |
| No court action? on 00:19 - Feb 16 with 1269 views | guthrieintherain |
| No court action? on 00:12 - Feb 16 by Dr_Parnassus |
Dilution to nothing is a mathematical impossibility, unfortunately the last Trust chairman regardless of his recent protestations, was just as inept as this one. A deal nearly passed under that leadership too. |
Are you referring to the Trust then recommending that its membership did not vote for legal action.
I do feel for the likes of London Lisa and Clase who post on the other board though.
They put a lot of effort into the legal action
Just for a few old duffers to give it away for a free meal a comfy seat and a couple of free pints in the directors box. [Post edited 16 Feb 2022 0:24]
| |
| |
| No court action? on 00:22 - Feb 16 with 1262 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| No court action? on 00:19 - Feb 16 by guthrieintherain |
Are you referring to the Trust then recommending that its membership did not vote for legal action.
I do feel for the likes of London Lisa and Clase who post on the other board though.
They put a lot of effort into the legal action
Just for a few old duffers to give it away for a free meal a comfy seat and a couple of free pints in the directors box. [Post edited 16 Feb 2022 0:24]
|
Indeed, recommended they took the awful deal put to them and ensured it would pass by the horrific way they conducted the vote where a legal route had to win twice essentially.
That only didn't go through because the Americans pulled out. So anyone from the last regime criticising this one, needs to take a long hard look at themselves. The Trust has been inept since it's inception.
Yep I concur on Lisa, no issues. ECB was clearly out of his depth but that is hardly his fault. There are very few exceptions though unfortunately.
One criticism at the time is that people wanted to preserve their status in the Trust and the trappings that come with it. This was vehemently denied back then, although I see it now being confirmed on the other board that this indeed has been the case by those on the board.
If they thought that of their colleagues at the time then they had a duty to share those concerns. [Post edited 16 Feb 2022 1:19]
| |
| |
| No court action? on 00:41 - Feb 16 with 1238 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
| No court action? on 00:22 - Feb 16 by Dr_Parnassus |
Indeed, recommended they took the awful deal put to them and ensured it would pass by the horrific way they conducted the vote where a legal route had to win twice essentially.
That only didn't go through because the Americans pulled out. So anyone from the last regime criticising this one, needs to take a long hard look at themselves. The Trust has been inept since it's inception.
Yep I concur on Lisa, no issues. ECB was clearly out of his depth but that is hardly his fault. There are very few exceptions though unfortunately.
One criticism at the time is that people wanted to preserve their status in the Trust and the trappings that come with it. This was vehemently denied back then, although I see it now being confirmed on the other board that this indeed has been the case by those on the board.
If they thought that of their colleagues at the time then they had a duty to share those concerns. [Post edited 16 Feb 2022 1:19]
|
Absolutely. I remember reading the literature posted to me outlining the original "deal", in which I was being recommended to vote in favour of it.
I was appalled and bemused to see The Trust recommending I vote in favour of a deal with the group who had wronged the organisation so recently. I made my thoughts clear on this forum at the time.
Seeing that deal then collapse was no surprise.
The decision making by those in charge since this situation erupted has been abysmal. I feel for those who worked hard to pursue the legal action (even those who were initially against it).
I hope those who pushed this through are viewed the same as Jenkins et al. for what they have done. |  |
| |
| No court action? on 00:45 - Feb 16 with 1240 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| No court action? on 00:41 - Feb 16 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
Absolutely. I remember reading the literature posted to me outlining the original "deal", in which I was being recommended to vote in favour of it.
I was appalled and bemused to see The Trust recommending I vote in favour of a deal with the group who had wronged the organisation so recently. I made my thoughts clear on this forum at the time.
Seeing that deal then collapse was no surprise.
The decision making by those in charge since this situation erupted has been abysmal. I feel for those who worked hard to pursue the legal action (even those who were initially against it).
I hope those who pushed this through are viewed the same as Jenkins et al. for what they have done. |
There are whispers around Dave Daltons relationship with Jenkins.
Questions need to be asked that's for sure and if the membership is unhappy at the decision, of which I am sure they must be - then they need to act to remove and veto.
If I was a Trust member, of which I am not, I would be demanding my membership money back and backdated to when this was first aired.
They sold memberships off the back of ''having a say'' and they have ignored that say despite the remit to go the legal route. As far as I am concerned those memberships have been mis-sold and they need to be issuing 5 years worth of refunds.
At the time I was criticised for not having a membership, I explained my reasons for my refusal - sadly, those reasons have come home to roost. [Post edited 16 Feb 2022 1:01]
| |
| |
| No court action? on 02:58 - Feb 16 with 1201 views | Chief |
| No court action? on 00:06 - Feb 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I direct you to the Trusts accounts. Obviously not fully up to date. £250k over 3 or 4 years. the £500k should cover it. On the other forum they talked of a surplus of £100k.
The former chairman said they were going to court to "avoid dilution to nothing". They appear to have solved that concern which in my opinion was never a real possibility. |
I don't know what you're not grasping on this.
The trust (well everyone besides the current board) do not want to be diluted at all, certainly not to 5%. A prefer option would be to pursue the sale of the trust's shares before they start getting diluted. The current board has closed off that option without consulting the members & against the wishes of the vast majority of them. | |
| |
| No court action? on 03:06 - Feb 16 with 1194 views | wobbly |
Maybe I’m missing something. But with this new ‘protected’ share class of 5% and the seat on the board, there now seems absolutely no point or purpose to paying to be a trust member? The 5% stake is ‘guaranteed’ now, but is effectively meaningless in terms of providing any protections. The board have now effectively agreed to dilution down from its current level.
So, why join or renew? It’s effectively become pointless. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
