| Trust statement 20:05 - Jun 13 with 35767 views | Joe_bradshaw |
The court case is happening at last.
Thanks Joe, a little bit from me to everyone.
Hi folks, this is clearly a topic many enjoy commenting on, but please remain consistent in your responses avoiding potential slurs on any characters involved and remain objective.
Thanks ðŸ‘
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Trust statement on 13:42 - Jun 15 with 1972 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 13:36 - Jun 15 by 3swan |
I'd be surprised if Huw Jenkins has a good relationship, if the comments made about him going against the owners in the James to Leeds transfer and then leaving as chairman soon after. |
He was not flavour of the day on the 'Black Friday ' for sure. However a few month later the was £7-8m more going into the clubs current account as a result of the ex Chairmans actions. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:44 - Jun 15 with 1964 views | 3swan |
| Trust statement on 13:42 - Jun 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
He was not flavour of the day on the 'Black Friday ' for sure. However a few month later the was £7-8m more going into the clubs current account as a result of the ex Chairmans actions. |
That helped the club yes, but I'd still think that going against them (if true) would not be easily forgotten |  | | |
| Trust statement on 13:55 - Jun 15 with 1954 views | Catullus |
| Trust statement on 17:42 - Jun 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
But I was not talking about 4% I was talking about 1%. Why 1%? Well 1% is closer to the "nothing at all" quoted in the statement. To dilute the SCST shares to 1% will take much more than your paltry £20m.
Of course if the US people value the club at £2m in the league 2. 1% will cost £20,000 and the SCST can spend £420,000 to buy 21% and maintain its holding. They have the money in the bank currently to invest in the club. This is what they should be doing. Obviously this is quite straight forward in a friendly constructive relationship.
I have seen no example of any investor piutting £20m into a league 2 club. The Wrexham big shots are intending blowing away their cometition with £2m in the National league.
The SCST are architects of their own downfall in effect. 21% of a Premeir League football team with no money in the bank. Dilution was inevitable sooner or later. 21% was way too big a holding once the club left league 1. [Post edited 14 Jun 2021 17:46]
|
An investor putting 20 million into aleague 2 club....well George Reynolds at Darlington but it didn't end at all well. They had the best stadium in non league at the time though.
SCST were EXCLUDED from the original sale, their were not the architects of anything and you know that. It's been done so many times on here now, it's becoming a cliche! | |
| |
| Trust statement on 14:04 - Jun 15 with 1936 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust statement on 13:05 - Jun 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
First up, if you want to debate with me you need to tidy up your game and show some respect. I have no mates in the club. None at all. Is that clear?
They gave up their voted rights because they sold them and had no use for them. They were perfectly happy for the US owners to make all the decisions. They sold the club to good well respected US buyers already in the sports entertaiment business with long track records of good management.
None of the other owners wanted the fans group to have a veto over their decsions. The SCST have a different "narrative" to every one else. There are people in the membership that want Swansea to be Exeter city with themselves on the board with nice trips to Kidderminster and Torquay. These are "know your place Welshmen and women" not the driving striving "sellouts" who go to Old Trafford abuse their manager and win.
For example the SCST hold their 21% holding as the most important thing. They therefore do not favour outside investment as this will dilute them. They wanted to run the club with no money and no investment. The fact that the club had been sucessful was down to the work of the so called "sellouts". It will probably never be repeated.
To put is simply if you want Swansea to be a low expectation "Exeter city" fan owned club support the SCST. If you want Swansea city to be like Norwich city, Burnley or Blackburn" support the owners. Its is as simple as that. [Post edited 15 Jun 2021 13:10]
|
It's clear we are going to agree to disagree on this. Have a good day and by all means feel free to hammer me if the truth shows I was on the wrong side. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 14:12 - Jun 15 with 1922 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 13:55 - Jun 15 by Catullus |
An investor putting 20 million into aleague 2 club....well George Reynolds at Darlington but it didn't end at all well. They had the best stadium in non league at the time though.
SCST were EXCLUDED from the original sale, their were not the architects of anything and you know that. It's been done so many times on here now, it's becoming a cliche! |
The chances of Levien doing that are next to nil. The SCST statement was misleading at best. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 16:15 - Jun 15 with 1868 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 11:43 - Jun 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Im afraid you have to look at some pretty bizarre scenarios to justify a line in the statement which is false and probably simply not checked. It suggested it would be quite easy for the US owners to dilute the SCST shares to nothing.
In your scenario Swanea have to be in the National league to be worth a palty £2m and on top of that the US investors, simply to harm the SCST, will invest £20m. Fanciful.
If Swansea remain in the championship it is practically impossible for the SCST to be diluted to nothing. [Post edited 15 Jun 2021 11:54]
|
You are missing the point.
It makes no difference what division the club are in. It’s simply a decision on valuation made by majority shareholders.
It is easy. I have explained why and how and given an example.
It is very far from practically impossible. It involves 2 special resolutions. Takes about two minutes. | | | |
| Trust statement on 16:24 - Jun 15 with 1855 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 13:23 - Jun 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Minor shareholder rights are protected in United Kingdom law for sure. It is not my field. Generally the UK is seen as a good place to do business and a good place to invest. The law is respected. I would think it would be easy enough to value the club by an independent assessor just like your house.
If the SCST are not happy with the law they should not have bought shares in the first place. The SCST will be in the identical position as the other Welsh shareholders who do have a good relationship with the US owners. [Post edited 15 Jun 2021 13:25]
|
Despite it not being your field of course you post almost incessantly on the issue.
Your right though that minority rights are protected. There is no such thing as U.K. law of course but let’s ignore that as a slip from the uninformed.
The Trust haven’t said they are not happy with the law though. In fact, I think you’ll see that they are using it. To protect those rights you describe.
You have done nothing but slag them off for doing so,
As an aside, the Trust bought the shares in the first place to save the club you pretend to support. And the position is not identical to other Welsh shareholders as they have all sold all or most of their shares for millions of pounds. Did you miss the update? | | | |
| Trust statement on 16:29 - Jun 15 with 1849 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 14:12 - Jun 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The chances of Levien doing that are next to nil. The SCST statement was misleading at best. |
What value was used for the recent potential investment?
Was that a fair value for a championship club?
Who decided the value?
All these and other questions eh...
Of course, if the chances of the majority owner not diluting the Trust are next to nil, then there is no problem in the parties signing a legal agreement to that effect presumably? Perhaps someone should ask and see if the Trust’s permanent position can be protected without legal action? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust statement on 17:03 - Jun 15 with 1814 views | jack_lord |
| Trust statement on 13:35 - Jun 15 by onehunglow |
Jase.
So are you saying that no local lads were involved in the missale and that those responsible were not Swansea men.
That puts matters in a different perspective for me.
And thanks for a decent exchange. Others need t follow your example |
Rich,
What I am saying is it wasn't Welsh people but People and some were greedy Welsh men. The biggest winners from the sale were MM and his wife. and then HJ. The biggest knife in the back was giving their voting rights to the American consortium. If they didn't need them then why not give them to the people who were jointly responsible for saving the club.
The club would have sunk without the Supporters doing what the supporters do.
I can't imagine much news coverage with MM JVZ and HJ walking down Oxford street telling Petty to go.
What does Mr Nurse think of the crusaders these days. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 17:09 - Jun 15 with 1809 views | vetchonian |
| Trust statement on 16:29 - Jun 15 by londonlisa2001 |
What value was used for the recent potential investment?
Was that a fair value for a championship club?
Who decided the value?
All these and other questions eh...
Of course, if the chances of the majority owner not diluting the Trust are next to nil, then there is no problem in the parties signing a legal agreement to that effect presumably? Perhaps someone should ask and see if the Trust’s permanent position can be protected without legal action? |
Lisa we are wasting our time on this person.
They are obviously a relative or very close friend of one or more of the sellouts
He is so protective of them.
Yes they along with the Trust saved the club,but what he fails to recognise is the "bitterness" most fans feel about how those so called "fans" who made so much about the situation the club found itself in prior to the buyout after Petty and claiming we "just not any club", sold out the Trust and the fans.
YEs they all put in monies in the beginning BUT HJ earned a nice wedge in salary as chairman..if he were a fan and this was not like other clubs he could have just taken a £50K salary or even £100K but no what was his final salary?
Surely too there were "conflicts of imterest" when companies owned by directors/shareholders were awarded contracts to provide services and building works for the club.
This man from the Neath valley overlooks the events and the procewss of the sale...the fact HJ wanted to get the Trust to sign a document which nullified the Shareholders agreement...the same agreement which the sellouts benefited from when Mel Nurse gifted his shres to the club.....all of those shares should have gone to the Trust but they were "evenly " distributed amongst the remaining shareholders....maybe that is why two shareholders retain shares though they have sold the voting rights... as they feel a pang of guilt....I dont think so.
I dont think any fan would have begrduged shreholders "selling out" but it was the manner in which it was done,excluding the majority shareholder. I have spoken before about why I cannot understand that the sell outs didnt sit more with the Trust and explain the issues surrounding cash flow etc and how hard it was now for the "preferred" model to operate and discuss options....but no it appears that it was about cashing in ! | |
| |
| Trust statement on 17:30 - Jun 15 with 1792 views | monmouth |
| Trust statement on 16:24 - Jun 15 by londonlisa2001 |
Despite it not being your field of course you post almost incessantly on the issue.
Your right though that minority rights are protected. There is no such thing as U.K. law of course but let’s ignore that as a slip from the uninformed.
The Trust haven’t said they are not happy with the law though. In fact, I think you’ll see that they are using it. To protect those rights you describe.
You have done nothing but slag them off for doing so,
As an aside, the Trust bought the shares in the first place to save the club you pretend to support. And the position is not identical to other Welsh shareholders as they have all sold all or most of their shares for millions of pounds. Did you miss the update? |
His response was laughable, of course.
I’m sure they could field someone better than this to spread their lies and nonsense? Oh no, hang on, this is probably their level. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 17:38 - Jun 15 with 1777 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 16:29 - Jun 15 by londonlisa2001 |
What value was used for the recent potential investment?
Was that a fair value for a championship club?
Who decided the value?
All these and other questions eh...
Of course, if the chances of the majority owner not diluting the Trust are next to nil, then there is no problem in the parties signing a legal agreement to that effect presumably? Perhaps someone should ask and see if the Trust’s permanent position can be protected without legal action? |
You spent several constructive hours in discussions with Mr Silverstein reportedly. Did you ask him? Did he refuse to answer? I read the meeting was friendly and constructive. If Mr Silverstein does not know then nobody does.
I regard US investment as a good thing and if the SCST are diluted that is a good thing too. Their holding should be something they can support and they should also be investors as in 2002.
I interpretate your phrase "Protecting the Trusts permanent position" as maintaining an unrealisticaly high proportion of the club like the current 21%. This is not a holding the SCST can support as their income streams are very low with minimal memberships fees and a very poor record in investment.
The SCST should protect themselves in accordance with rules and regulations enshrined in UK law for minor shareholders and should not expect special treatment. They are a rich and notionally strong organisation with over 1000 members and can stand on their own two feet and make their own decisions. They do not need any other agreement with the majority shareholders as far I can see.
i am sorry to see this go to court. I see it as divorce proceedings (rightly or wrongly). If they cannot even meet for mediation, if I was the judge I would assess the relationship is irreparable and a clean break is required. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 18:11 - Jun 15 with 1753 views | max936 |
I know the truth, I don't need to read any cock and ball story from the BBC. You'll never ever acknowledge the truth like a few others on here, everyone should move on etc etc, is the narrative trotted out, every time.
Legacy ruined for greed simple as that, unfortunately they are not unique in that though, if they had done it out in the open and fairly they could have gone with their heads held high and with the fans respect and Thanks, doubt any of them care though. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 18:15 - Jun 15 with 1733 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 17:03 - Jun 15 by jack_lord |
Rich,
What I am saying is it wasn't Welsh people but People and some were greedy Welsh men. The biggest winners from the sale were MM and his wife. and then HJ. The biggest knife in the back was giving their voting rights to the American consortium. If they didn't need them then why not give them to the people who were jointly responsible for saving the club.
The club would have sunk without the Supporters doing what the supporters do.
I can't imagine much news coverage with MM JVZ and HJ walking down Oxford street telling Petty to go.
What does Mr Nurse think of the crusaders these days. |
Jase.
I don't actually disagree with that. It's unusual to see such a respectful bile free riposte.
MM is Welsh ,n'est pas, and as I say, it is backtabbing by Welsh people/fans who shafted other fans. My point is and was;it is sadnes itself that we had to have a Trust to protect the club.
My points as regards negativity stand too;people ,fans EXPECTING the worse. THAT is naked negativity.
It's a sad state of affairs either way and mainly as it again shows the schism in our fan base.
It's actually worrying why this is,but well said. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 18:18 - Jun 15 with 1741 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 17:38 - Jun 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You spent several constructive hours in discussions with Mr Silverstein reportedly. Did you ask him? Did he refuse to answer? I read the meeting was friendly and constructive. If Mr Silverstein does not know then nobody does.
I regard US investment as a good thing and if the SCST are diluted that is a good thing too. Their holding should be something they can support and they should also be investors as in 2002.
I interpretate your phrase "Protecting the Trusts permanent position" as maintaining an unrealisticaly high proportion of the club like the current 21%. This is not a holding the SCST can support as their income streams are very low with minimal memberships fees and a very poor record in investment.
The SCST should protect themselves in accordance with rules and regulations enshrined in UK law for minor shareholders and should not expect special treatment. They are a rich and notionally strong organisation with over 1000 members and can stand on their own two feet and make their own decisions. They do not need any other agreement with the majority shareholders as far I can see.
i am sorry to see this go to court. I see it as divorce proceedings (rightly or wrongly). If they cannot even meet for mediation, if I was the judge I would assess the relationship is irreparable and a clean break is required. |
I have never spent a second with Mr Silverstein. Never even said hello. Let alone several constructive hours. Would you like to withdraw that falsehood?
You are misinformed.
You can interpret whatever you want. You will not be correct. And I do wish you’d decide whether the Trust is ‘rich and notionally strong with over 1000 members’ or, instead, an organisation that has ‘very low income, minimal membership fees and a very poor record of investment’. Any proof for that last bit btw?
The one thing I would agree with is that we should all be sorry to see this go to court. But the Trust have done everything possible to attempt to prevent that, and despite your repeated accusations, the reality of who did and didn’t do what around mediation is pretty straightforward. And protecting themselves with the law is exactly what the Trust are doing. No one has asked for more than that. | | | |
| Trust statement on 18:21 - Jun 15 with 1733 views | max936 |
| Trust statement on 17:38 - Jun 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You spent several constructive hours in discussions with Mr Silverstein reportedly. Did you ask him? Did he refuse to answer? I read the meeting was friendly and constructive. If Mr Silverstein does not know then nobody does.
I regard US investment as a good thing and if the SCST are diluted that is a good thing too. Their holding should be something they can support and they should also be investors as in 2002.
I interpretate your phrase "Protecting the Trusts permanent position" as maintaining an unrealisticaly high proportion of the club like the current 21%. This is not a holding the SCST can support as their income streams are very low with minimal memberships fees and a very poor record in investment.
The SCST should protect themselves in accordance with rules and regulations enshrined in UK law for minor shareholders and should not expect special treatment. They are a rich and notionally strong organisation with over 1000 members and can stand on their own two feet and make their own decisions. They do not need any other agreement with the majority shareholders as far I can see.
i am sorry to see this go to court. I see it as divorce proceedings (rightly or wrongly). If they cannot even meet for mediation, if I was the judge I would assess the relationship is irreparable and a clean break is required. |
Its your butties Steve and Jas that won't put their heads above the parapet and meet for a mediation meeting, the SCST tried and tried. Its your other butties that sold out that the issue is mostly with, but I very much doubt that they would go to any meetings with SCST | |
| |
| Trust statement on 19:16 - Jun 15 with 1702 views | jack_lord |
| Trust statement on 18:15 - Jun 15 by onehunglow |
Jase.
I don't actually disagree with that. It's unusual to see such a respectful bile free riposte.
MM is Welsh ,n'est pas, and as I say, it is backtabbing by Welsh people/fans who shafted other fans. My point is and was;it is sadnes itself that we had to have a Trust to protect the club.
My points as regards negativity stand too;people ,fans EXPECTING the worse. THAT is naked negativity.
It's a sad state of affairs either way and mainly as it again shows the schism in our fan base.
It's actually worrying why this is,but well said. |
I don't think there is that much of a schism between the majority of our fans. I do think that fans of many football clubs do expect the worse and negative prevails.
There are a few clubs who are exempt and they tend to be a club that has a very rich successful history or have a new set of owners who have invested not just bought a club and called it investment. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 19:21 - Jun 15 with 1686 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 19:16 - Jun 15 by jack_lord |
I don't think there is that much of a schism between the majority of our fans. I do think that fans of many football clubs do expect the worse and negative prevails.
There are a few clubs who are exempt and they tend to be a club that has a very rich successful history or have a new set of owners who have invested not just bought a club and called it investment. |
There 's a Grand Canyon between me and many (at least on here). I reckon my views are more vox populae than some think.
I think Wales is divided mate,linguistically,economically and geologically | |
| |
| Trust statement on 19:28 - Jun 15 with 1693 views | jack_lord |
| Trust statement on 19:21 - Jun 15 by onehunglow |
There 's a Grand Canyon between me and many (at least on here). I reckon my views are more vox populae than some think.
I think Wales is divided mate,linguistically,economically and geologically |
I agree Wales is divided.
I guess the only difference between England and Wales is that England only has the one language at the moment. Are the divisions more extreme in Wales? possibly. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 19:44 - Jun 15 with 1672 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 19:28 - Jun 15 by jack_lord |
I agree Wales is divided.
I guess the only difference between England and Wales is that England only has the one language at the moment. Are the divisions more extreme in Wales? possibly. |
I doubt that mate.
The north east is light years away from the London area in every way.
Liverpool floats to its own beat.
Cumbria is a world away as is Cornwall.
As regards language,try to witness a real Geordie taking to one cured by Essex estuary drawl-the most painful affront to the human ear.
Deepest Norfolk is a treat too | |
| |
| Trust statement on 19:58 - Jun 15 with 1673 views | jack_lord |
| Trust statement on 19:44 - Jun 15 by onehunglow |
I doubt that mate.
The north east is light years away from the London area in every way.
Liverpool floats to its own beat.
Cumbria is a world away as is Cornwall.
As regards language,try to witness a real Geordie taking to one cured by Essex estuary drawl-the most painful affront to the human ear.
Deepest Norfolk is a treat too |
Being ex forces I experienced with some hilarity listening to people from those parts. When they got excited it was even more amusing but they were allegedly speaking the same language and weren't divided by it. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 20:08 - Jun 15 with 1653 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 19:58 - Jun 15 by jack_lord |
Being ex forces I experienced with some hilarity listening to people from those parts. When they got excited it was even more amusing but they were allegedly speaking the same language and weren't divided by it. |
real scousers sound like they ve imbibed helium when agitated | |
| |
| Trust statement on 22:09 - Jun 15 with 1600 views | BillyChong |
| Trust statement on 17:38 - Jun 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You spent several constructive hours in discussions with Mr Silverstein reportedly. Did you ask him? Did he refuse to answer? I read the meeting was friendly and constructive. If Mr Silverstein does not know then nobody does.
I regard US investment as a good thing and if the SCST are diluted that is a good thing too. Their holding should be something they can support and they should also be investors as in 2002.
I interpretate your phrase "Protecting the Trusts permanent position" as maintaining an unrealisticaly high proportion of the club like the current 21%. This is not a holding the SCST can support as their income streams are very low with minimal memberships fees and a very poor record in investment.
The SCST should protect themselves in accordance with rules and regulations enshrined in UK law for minor shareholders and should not expect special treatment. They are a rich and notionally strong organisation with over 1000 members and can stand on their own two feet and make their own decisions. They do not need any other agreement with the majority shareholders as far I can see.
i am sorry to see this go to court. I see it as divorce proceedings (rightly or wrongly). If they cannot even meet for mediation, if I was the judge I would assess the relationship is irreparable and a clean break is required. |
How is it a divorce agreement when the legal action is against the sellouts? | | | |
| Trust statement on 22:13 - Jun 15 with 1593 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 18:18 - Jun 15 by londonlisa2001 |
I have never spent a second with Mr Silverstein. Never even said hello. Let alone several constructive hours. Would you like to withdraw that falsehood?
You are misinformed.
You can interpret whatever you want. You will not be correct. And I do wish you’d decide whether the Trust is ‘rich and notionally strong with over 1000 members’ or, instead, an organisation that has ‘very low income, minimal membership fees and a very poor record of investment’. Any proof for that last bit btw?
The one thing I would agree with is that we should all be sorry to see this go to court. But the Trust have done everything possible to attempt to prevent that, and despite your repeated accusations, the reality of who did and didn’t do what around mediation is pretty straightforward. And protecting themselves with the law is exactly what the Trust are doing. No one has asked for more than that. |
Yes I withdraw the falsehood. I istened to the podcast of the chairman who talked of the constructive meeting and and thanked you for your hardwork suggessting to me you were present. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 22:20 - Jun 15 with 1584 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 22:09 - Jun 15 by BillyChong |
How is it a divorce agreement when the legal action is against the sellouts? |
My interpretation is that the SCST are very unhappy at missing the chance of selling their shares while in the PL. They had 21% in 2015 and still have 21% today.
It was speculated in numerous posts that the sellers would be obliged to buy all their shares back at 2016 prices if they won the case. They would in that case leave the club completely. Perhaps things have changed? I am just a fan that wants the best for the club. I do not care one jot for the SCST. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
