| Huw Jenkins 13:44 - Jun 20 with 13657 views | raynor94 |
Swings the axe again, At Newport County this time |  |
| |  |
| Huw Jenkins on 21:47 - Jul 13 with 1507 views | Dr_Winston |
| Huw Jenkins on 20:13 - Jul 13 by vetchonian |
The trust couldn't sell as has been reported on numerous occasions they were excluded from talks in the 2016 sale.
There are lots of points of view and opinions but you overlooked the fact when this sale was concluded the majority shareholders at the time were kept on the dark until it was a fait accomplis |
The sellouts reacted badly to the Trust's objections to the potential sale of the club to John Jay Moores and Charles Noell which caused the sale to collapse.
Seeing the pound signs disappear before their eyes, any and all tactics to exclude the Trust from involvement in subsequent negotiations with potentially interested parties were employed.
This is all a matter of record. You'd have to be an apologist, moron or troll to claim otherwise. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Huw Jenkins on 22:41 - Jul 13 with 1449 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Huw Jenkins on 21:47 - Jul 13 by Dr_Winston |
The sellouts reacted badly to the Trust's objections to the potential sale of the club to John Jay Moores and Charles Noell which caused the sale to collapse.
Seeing the pound signs disappear before their eyes, any and all tactics to exclude the Trust from involvement in subsequent negotiations with potentially interested parties were employed.
This is all a matter of record. You'd have to be an apologist, moron or troll to claim otherwise. |
The word "sellout " tells me you view is based on an emotional rather than a logical thought process. You have similar posted myths about Huw taking increased role in recruitment when in fact he has done this throughout his tenure. He was alway open ot managers bringing in their own players before thing went wrong. Clement brought in Sanches disastrously which cost him his job. Guidolin brought in Llorente which worked well.
You last line is arrogant nonsense. People buy shares to make money and the ownership had done an heroic 14 years, Only a stone colder loser would begrudge them returns and the chance to move on. Those people were member of the Trust who forget what they were trying to achieve and the best way to achieve it. That was selling as many shares as possible in 2016 and is obvious to anyone with some sort of common sense. They should have got their ducks in order after chasing away Moores and co in 2015. The membership was asleep at that time from what i can see.
There is nothing a football fan can relate to like "betrayal". This means those that were loved the most end up as "sellouts". Martinez Brendan Jenkins. Betrayal is always tempting for football fans.
I argue that the so called sellouts did a good job for the club and left it in good hands. They made sure the new owners had access to third party money and brought with them no debt. It was not a leveraged buyout like Burnley. No one promise "next level".
The Trust were given plenty of opportunities to sell but the membership majority did not force their leadership to do the right thing and sell at least some of their shares. 21% was always always too big a holding for them. The Trust foolishly wanted a bigger holding and some control. They wrote their own hype. The club was successful because of them not the "lucky failed roofer". Total fiction of course. The other owners buttered them up of course as they represented the fan base.
They simply did not see bad times coming and the wreckage of clubs like Bolton, Portsmouth, Sheffield Wednesday QPR etc. That is what 'passengers' do . |  |
| |
| Huw Jenkins on 22:46 - Jul 13 with 1458 views | Dr_Winston |
| Huw Jenkins on 22:41 - Jul 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The word "sellout " tells me you view is based on an emotional rather than a logical thought process. You have similar posted myths about Huw taking increased role in recruitment when in fact he has done this throughout his tenure. He was alway open ot managers bringing in their own players before thing went wrong. Clement brought in Sanches disastrously which cost him his job. Guidolin brought in Llorente which worked well.
You last line is arrogant nonsense. People buy shares to make money and the ownership had done an heroic 14 years, Only a stone colder loser would begrudge them returns and the chance to move on. Those people were member of the Trust who forget what they were trying to achieve and the best way to achieve it. That was selling as many shares as possible in 2016 and is obvious to anyone with some sort of common sense. They should have got their ducks in order after chasing away Moores and co in 2015. The membership was asleep at that time from what i can see.
There is nothing a football fan can relate to like "betrayal". This means those that were loved the most end up as "sellouts". Martinez Brendan Jenkins. Betrayal is always tempting for football fans.
I argue that the so called sellouts did a good job for the club and left it in good hands. They made sure the new owners had access to third party money and brought with them no debt. It was not a leveraged buyout like Burnley. No one promise "next level".
The Trust were given plenty of opportunities to sell but the membership majority did not force their leadership to do the right thing and sell at least some of their shares. 21% was always always too big a holding for them. The Trust foolishly wanted a bigger holding and some control. They wrote their own hype. The club was successful because of them not the "lucky failed roofer". Total fiction of course. The other owners buttered them up of course as they represented the fan base.
They simply did not see bad times coming and the wreckage of clubs like Bolton, Portsmouth, Sheffield Wednesday QPR etc. That is what 'passengers' do . |
Apologist, moron or troll? | |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Huw Jenkins on 17:15 - Jul 14 with 1300 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Huw Jenkins on 22:46 - Jul 13 by Dr_Winston |
Apologist, moron or troll? |
None of the above. Apologist for what? Success?
The definition of a 'loser' is when he or she do not even recognise a job well done.
Making money out of football is not easy and nothing to be ashamed of. Selling shares is not a crime.
Swansea city football club is in quite a good place. Losses are covered by the owners. The Trust are being diluted but they have been irrelevant for some time. | |
| |
| Huw Jenkins on 18:01 - Jul 14 with 1271 views | theloneranger |
| Huw Jenkins on 22:41 - Jul 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The word "sellout " tells me you view is based on an emotional rather than a logical thought process. You have similar posted myths about Huw taking increased role in recruitment when in fact he has done this throughout his tenure. He was alway open ot managers bringing in their own players before thing went wrong. Clement brought in Sanches disastrously which cost him his job. Guidolin brought in Llorente which worked well.
You last line is arrogant nonsense. People buy shares to make money and the ownership had done an heroic 14 years, Only a stone colder loser would begrudge them returns and the chance to move on. Those people were member of the Trust who forget what they were trying to achieve and the best way to achieve it. That was selling as many shares as possible in 2016 and is obvious to anyone with some sort of common sense. They should have got their ducks in order after chasing away Moores and co in 2015. The membership was asleep at that time from what i can see.
There is nothing a football fan can relate to like "betrayal". This means those that were loved the most end up as "sellouts". Martinez Brendan Jenkins. Betrayal is always tempting for football fans.
I argue that the so called sellouts did a good job for the club and left it in good hands. They made sure the new owners had access to third party money and brought with them no debt. It was not a leveraged buyout like Burnley. No one promise "next level".
The Trust were given plenty of opportunities to sell but the membership majority did not force their leadership to do the right thing and sell at least some of their shares. 21% was always always too big a holding for them. The Trust foolishly wanted a bigger holding and some control. They wrote their own hype. The club was successful because of them not the "lucky failed roofer". Total fiction of course. The other owners buttered them up of course as they represented the fan base.
They simply did not see bad times coming and the wreckage of clubs like Bolton, Portsmouth, Sheffield Wednesday QPR etc. That is what 'passengers' do . |
Why did John Jay Moores and Charles Noell attempts at purchasing us, Everton and Notts Forest collapse at the last minute??
Each time when they needed to pass - "the fit and proper persons test" - the deals collapsed!! |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| Huw Jenkins on 13:56 - Jul 15 with 1144 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Huw Jenkins on 18:01 - Jul 14 by theloneranger |
Why did John Jay Moores and Charles Noell attempts at purchasing us, Everton and Notts Forest collapse at the last minute??
Each time when they needed to pass - "the fit and proper persons test" - the deals collapsed!! |
From what recall reading they wanted to pump in £30m and become the biggest but not majority shareholder. This would see all other shareholders diluted. The price they were prepared to pay for the new shares was quite a bit less than what Kaplan and co paid.
At that point the Trust stated they would not accept any dilution from press reports. This was what I regarded as an unreasonable and a privileged position.
Not surprisingly I suspect this unnerved the other owners who having done 14 years of brilliant work were faced by being "handcuffed* to the club indefinitely. The start of the schism perhaps?
The US people would never accept this and the price was not high enough anyway. The forum narrative is the due diligence by the Trust. I personally don't believe this. | |
| |
| Huw Jenkins on 19:18 - Jul 15 with 1075 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Huw Jenkins on 13:56 - Jul 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
From what recall reading they wanted to pump in £30m and become the biggest but not majority shareholder. This would see all other shareholders diluted. The price they were prepared to pay for the new shares was quite a bit less than what Kaplan and co paid.
At that point the Trust stated they would not accept any dilution from press reports. This was what I regarded as an unreasonable and a privileged position.
Not surprisingly I suspect this unnerved the other owners who having done 14 years of brilliant work were faced by being "handcuffed* to the club indefinitely. The start of the schism perhaps?
The US people would never accept this and the price was not high enough anyway. The forum narrative is the due diligence by the Trust. I personally don't believe this. |
The trust couldn't have stopped the other shareholders selling up, they were never handcuffed. The trist had too few shares to have any real say. The other owners all refused to sell them anymore shares because if they had reached in excess of 25% they couldn't have been forced to sell.
I believe that's true, if not then someone please correct me. |  | | |
| Huw Jenkins on 20:16 - Jul 15 with 1025 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Huw Jenkins on 19:18 - Jul 15 by SullutaCreturned |
The trust couldn't have stopped the other shareholders selling up, they were never handcuffed. The trist had too few shares to have any real say. The other owners all refused to sell them anymore shares because if they had reached in excess of 25% they couldn't have been forced to sell.
I believe that's true, if not then someone please correct me. |
The Chief used to quote the Shareholders Agreement. Something oft quoted but never published. If it existed and was relevant it could have been used to stop the sale.
A minor shareholder could have also expressed deep dissatisfaction and chase away buyers buy making unreasonable demands (such as an undilutable 20%+ shareholding for example). | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Huw Jenkins on 20:24 - Jul 15 with 1014 views | vetchonian |
| Huw Jenkins on 20:16 - Jul 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Chief used to quote the Shareholders Agreement. Something oft quoted but never published. If it existed and was relevant it could have been used to stop the sale.
A minor shareholder could have also expressed deep dissatisfaction and chase away buyers buy making unreasonable demands (such as an undilutable 20%+ shareholding for example). |
The shareholders agreement did exist it was why Mel Nurses shares were distributed evenly to all shareholders and nit given to the Trust......don't forget there are documents where your hero attempted to get the same said agreement nullified | |
| |
| Huw Jenkins on 20:27 - Jul 15 with 1009 views | max936 |
| Huw Jenkins on 20:24 - Jul 15 by vetchonian |
The shareholders agreement did exist it was why Mel Nurses shares were distributed evenly to all shareholders and nit given to the Trust......don't forget there are documents where your hero attempted to get the same said agreement nullified |
Don't go letting the truth get in the way of yet another yarn Vetchy. |  |
| |
| Huw Jenkins on 11:31 - Jul 16 with 894 views | theloneranger |
"Former Swansea City coach Nelson Jardim will lead Newport County into the new League Two season."
"Portuguese-born Jardim has been confirmed as the club's head coach, having initially joined the Exiles as a “lead coach” earlier this month."
"When Jardim originally joined the coaching staff, Newport said they would "continue its search for a new head coach" following the departure of former boss Graham Coughlan in June."
"But Newport chairman Huw Jenkins has now told the club website: “One or two matters needed to be discussed and agreed during the last few weeks before this announcement could be confirmed." | |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| Huw Jenkins on 13:17 - Jul 16 with 836 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Huw Jenkins on 20:24 - Jul 15 by vetchonian |
The shareholders agreement did exist it was why Mel Nurses shares were distributed evenly to all shareholders and nit given to the Trust......don't forget there are documents where your hero attempted to get the same said agreement nullified |
There is another version of the Nurse story which is very different to your version. I do not know which is true. Ideally the Trust would have been keen to sell at the top of their market and got their fair share and kept a minor holding.
Mr Silverstein solved the issue. I give him credit. Find problem. Fly over. Solve it. | |
| |
| Huw Jenkins on 13:22 - Jul 16 with 835 views | theloneranger |
| Huw Jenkins on 13:17 - Jul 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
There is another version of the Nurse story which is very different to your version. I do not know which is true. Ideally the Trust would have been keen to sell at the top of their market and got their fair share and kept a minor holding.
Mr Silverstein solved the issue. I give him credit. Find problem. Fly over. Solve it. |
Why don't you tell us what the other version of the Nurse story is?? | |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| Huw Jenkins on 13:24 - Jul 16 with 828 views | Whiterockin |
| Huw Jenkins on 13:22 - Jul 16 by theloneranger |
Why don't you tell us what the other version of the Nurse story is?? |
He needs time to make one up. |  | | |
| Huw Jenkins on 13:29 - Jul 16 with 812 views | QJumpingJack |
| Huw Jenkins on 13:17 - Jul 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
There is another version of the Nurse story which is very different to your version. I do not know which is true. Ideally the Trust would have been keen to sell at the top of their market and got their fair share and kept a minor holding.
Mr Silverstein solved the issue. I give him credit. Find problem. Fly over. Solve it. |
what is Mr Silverstein up to at the moment with the club? He has been very quiet since he sat down and did the Trust interview (available on YouTube). | | | |
| Huw Jenkins on 14:22 - Jul 16 with 756 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Huw Jenkins on 13:22 - Jul 16 by theloneranger |
Why don't you tell us what the other version of the Nurse story is?? |
The Vetchonian version of events is a well worn narrative that has been contested by another poster who appeared to be in the know and claimed to witnessed the events.
It is the Vetchonian that needs to collaborate his story not me. Only one version can be right. It was a private transaction. | |
| |
| Huw Jenkins on 15:16 - Jul 16 with 722 views | Superjan |
| Huw Jenkins on 14:22 - Jul 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Vetchonian version of events is a well worn narrative that has been contested by another poster who appeared to be in the know and claimed to witnessed the events.
It is the Vetchonian that needs to collaborate his story not me. Only one version can be right. It was a private transaction. |
Collaborate ? I do not understand what you are trying to say . | | | |
| Huw Jenkins on 15:22 - Jul 16 with 698 views | JumpingJackFlash |
| Huw Jenkins on 13:22 - Jul 16 by theloneranger |
Why don't you tell us what the other version of the Nurse story is?? |
Any other version is lies.
Mel Nurse himself confirmed the true story to many people enjoying a drink in his hotel over the years. He wanted to donate his shares to the Trust but was prevented from doing so by the shareholder’s agreement. I heard it from the horse’s mouth.
Later, the shareholder’s agreement apparently didn’t exist according to those who used it to ensure that Mel’s shares were distributed pro rata. | | | |
| Huw Jenkins on 15:31 - Jul 16 with 686 views | shaggyrogers |
| Huw Jenkins on 20:24 - Jul 15 by vetchonian |
The shareholders agreement did exist it was why Mel Nurses shares were distributed evenly to all shareholders and nit given to the Trust......don't forget there are documents where your hero attempted to get the same said agreement nullified |
That is rubbish sorry. The club performed a share buyback at a set price per share. The price per share was governed by what division the club was in at the time. Mel decided to cash in when the club reached the championship. The buyback meant that everybodies share percentage increased in ratio to the shares they held. The trust were part of that and got the same as everyone.
As an example the trust held 200,000 shares out of 1 million = 20% before Mel sold. Once Mel sold they held 200,000 shares out of 950,000 shares ie 21%.
.... and that is exactly what happened.
It might also pain some but Mel did very well out of the club in the petty ousting as well doubling his money and getting the carpark | | | |
| Huw Jenkins on 17:03 - Jul 16 with 631 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Huw Jenkins on 15:16 - Jul 16 by Superjan |
Collaborate ? I do not understand what you are trying to say . |
Sorry spell check error. Corroborate was the word I was looking for.
Corroborate - confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding). [Post edited 16 Jul 17:04]
| |
| |
| Huw Jenkins on 19:24 - Jul 16 with 576 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Huw Jenkins on 22:46 - Jul 13 by Dr_Winston |
Apologist, moron or troll? |
Could be all three and I laughed when I saw he'd included Brendan in that because if there is one person who didn't sell us out it was him, he made sure we got something for him when he left.
Martinez said he'd have to be carried out and was gone as soon as Wigan came calling.
Jenkins, it's all been said, a hell of a lot of repeats too. usually from the same source. | | | |
| Huw Jenkins on 20:33 - Jul 16 with 536 views | Dr_Winston |
| Huw Jenkins on 19:24 - Jul 16 by SullutaCreturned |
Could be all three and I laughed when I saw he'd included Brendan in that because if there is one person who didn't sell us out it was him, he made sure we got something for him when he left.
Martinez said he'd have to be carried out and was gone as soon as Wigan came calling.
Jenkins, it's all been said, a hell of a lot of repeats too. usually from the same source. |
Martinez was gone as soon as Wigan came calling and then spent weeks pretending that he wasn't whilst we spent money helping him scout for his future club.
I'd heard stories about what a thoroughly disingenous individual he was whilst he was still a player so his actions didn't surprise me all that much. Does still surprise me how many people continue to rush to his defence though.
You begin to understand why online scamming is such an industry these days. | |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Huw Jenkins on 21:02 - Jul 16 with 502 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Huw Jenkins on 20:16 - Jul 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Chief used to quote the Shareholders Agreement. Something oft quoted but never published. If it existed and was relevant it could have been used to stop the sale.
A minor shareholder could have also expressed deep dissatisfaction and chase away buyers buy making unreasonable demands (such as an undilutable 20%+ shareholding for example). |
A minor shareholder can make noise but has no actual power beyond voting rights. They cannot chase people away, that's just another one of your fantasies.
I believe that unless or until they had 25% of shares they couldn't make any demands. And they certainly could not stop the majority shareholders selling their shares to whomever they chose, as we can plainly see because they sold to Levein and Kaplan. | | | |
| Huw Jenkins on 21:06 - Jul 16 with 500 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Huw Jenkins on 14:22 - Jul 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Vetchonian version of events is a well worn narrative that has been contested by another poster who appeared to be in the know and claimed to witnessed the events.
It is the Vetchonian that needs to collaborate his story not me. Only one version can be right. It was a private transaction. |
In plain English, yeah I made that bit up and cannot prove any of what I said so I'll deflect the attention and hope noboy notices.
Which oster contested the Nurse "narrative"? And what is the other version, come on. You made the caim so back it up, unless it really is complete BS of course  | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
