| Trust Shares 00:07 - Nov 23 with 7274 views | Taliesin |
There's been much talk about selling the trust shares but the question is raised about who would buy them because they are effectively useless.
Is there any reason the shares cannot be sold to trust members (or indeed the wider fanbase) Split up into packages which many could find affordable - the trust gets its rainy day fund whilst the shares remain in the hands of the supporters.
Is there a reason the Trust wouldn't, couldn't or shouldn't take this approach? |  | | |  |
| Trust Shares on 00:14 - Nov 23 with 4465 views | airedale |
How much would each share cost, and should the Trust sell all of their shares?
#smithereens |  | | |
| Trust Shares on 00:20 - Nov 23 with 4452 views | Taliesin |
tbh I have no idea how many shares there are and what they're valued at - anybody? | | | |
| Trust Shares on 06:57 - Nov 23 with 4362 views | SwansNZ |
| Trust Shares on 00:20 - Nov 23 by Taliesin |
tbh I have no idea how many shares there are and what they're valued at - anybody? |
You basically said above that they are worthless (useless), so how many fans would stump up a lot of cash to fund this rainy day fund?
They were valued at over £20 million, now, well quite a bit less. |  |
| |
| Trust Shares on 07:15 - Nov 23 with 4337 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Trust Shares on 06:57 - Nov 23 by SwansNZ |
You basically said above that they are worthless (useless), so how many fans would stump up a lot of cash to fund this rainy day fund?
They were valued at over £20 million, now, well quite a bit less. |
Well previously dividends of £1m have been paid to shareholders on more than one occasion, with the Trust netting a 1/5th of that figure each time. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Trust Shares on 07:17 - Nov 23 with 4330 views | Jango |
| Trust Shares on 06:57 - Nov 23 by SwansNZ |
You basically said above that they are worthless (useless), so how many fans would stump up a lot of cash to fund this rainy day fund?
They were valued at over £20 million, now, well quite a bit less. |
Useless in the boardroom, hardly worthless tho. [Post edited 23 Nov 2016 7:17]
|  | | |
| Trust Shares on 07:19 - Nov 23 with 4327 views | SwansNZ |
| Trust Shares on 07:15 - Nov 23 by Kilkennyjack |
Well previously dividends of £1m have been paid to shareholders on more than one occasion, with the Trust netting a 1/5th of that figure each time. |
Indeed. The Yanks will probably issue more shares to devalue the Trusts holding further. | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 07:20 - Nov 23 with 4324 views | SwansNZ |
| Trust Shares on 07:17 - Nov 23 by Jango |
Useless in the boardroom, hardly worthless tho. [Post edited 23 Nov 2016 7:17]
|
No, hardly worthless, but valued a damn sight less than what the sellouts had. | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 08:33 - Nov 23 with 4275 views | barry_island |
Perhaps the Trust should make a film to sell the club down the river. | |
| Swansea City, THE Austerity Club. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Shares on 09:32 - Nov 23 with 4212 views | whiterock |
Shares were worth £110 per share, Trust has 21,000, on paper worth about £23m | | | |
| Trust Shares on 10:14 - Nov 23 with 4174 views | Jack_y_Jwc |
I've also thought about this, I suppose it depends what the trust deem a "rainy day" fund.
Selling 21,000 shares at:
£750 would amount to £15.75m;
£500 would amount to £10.5m;
£250 would amount to £5.25m;
How many fans would part with that much money with no intention of getting ROI? | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 10:47 - Nov 23 with 4147 views | Pegojack |
| Trust Shares on 09:32 - Nov 23 by whiterock |
Shares were worth £110 per share, Trust has 21,000, on paper worth about £23m |
Back to maths class for extra homework, Butt. |  | | |
| Trust Shares on 12:24 - Nov 23 with 4092 views | airedale |
I reckon the share are worth what someone is prepared to pay for them, at any given time. I suppose that could also depend on what the owners of the shares would be prepared to sell them for too, depending on circumstances at any given time. | | | |
| Trust Shares on 13:07 - Nov 23 with 4062 views | Shaky |
IF the "Trust" have competent legal representation they should have a near watertight case that would allow them to bring an action under the Companies Act to force the company (effectively the shareholders) to purchase all their shares at the same price paid to the others in July.
However, as I see it the case is so compelling that it ought never go to court, with the American's highly likely to pay up if a credible threat of legal action is made.
We've had 3 false starts from the "Trust" so far, so what exactly is holding up matters?
This is why the questions about Dai Little are so imporetant:
1. Is he competent?
2. How much are him and his associates being paid by the "Trust"/do they have a vested interest in dragging this out? (That the "Trust has been lying about this sort of thing again is a completely seperate matter) |  |
| |
| Trust Shares on 13:25 - Nov 23 with 4034 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Shares on 13:07 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
IF the "Trust" have competent legal representation they should have a near watertight case that would allow them to bring an action under the Companies Act to force the company (effectively the shareholders) to purchase all their shares at the same price paid to the others in July.
However, as I see it the case is so compelling that it ought never go to court, with the American's highly likely to pay up if a credible threat of legal action is made.
We've had 3 false starts from the "Trust" so far, so what exactly is holding up matters?
This is why the questions about Dai Little are so imporetant:
1. Is he competent?
2. How much are him and his associates being paid by the "Trust"/do they have a vested interest in dragging this out? (That the "Trust has been lying about this sort of thing again is a completely seperate matter) |
"should have a near watertight case that would allow them to bring an action under the Companies Act to force the company"
Genuine question - are there any cases from the courts that could be used as precedent? |  |
| |
| Trust Shares on 13:25 - Nov 23 with 4032 views | Shaky |
| Trust Shares on 13:25 - Nov 23 by waynekerr55 |
"should have a near watertight case that would allow them to bring an action under the Companies Act to force the company"
Genuine question - are there any cases from the courts that could be used as precedent? |
Yes. | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 13:37 - Nov 23 with 4016 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Shares on 13:25 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
Yes. |
Would that be s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980 para 1(b)? | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 13:42 - Nov 23 with 4005 views | Shaky |
| Trust Shares on 13:37 - Nov 23 by waynekerr55 |
Would that be s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980 para 1(b)? |
No, that's clearly not a case.
And just to prevent any further questioning along these lines I am saying nothing until I have some answers, cos I have no confidence whatsoever in any of the personnel handling this.
Transparency---Arrrrhahahahaahahahaha. | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 13:44 - Nov 23 with 3985 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Shares on 13:42 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
No, that's clearly not a case.
And just to prevent any further questioning along these lines I am saying nothing until I have some answers, cos I have no confidence whatsoever in any of the personnel handling this.
Transparency---Arrrrhahahahaahahahaha. |
Sorry - I meant examples using this part of the legislation.
On a serious note, have you answered Darran's question from earlier? | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 13:50 - Nov 23 with 3969 views | Shaky |
| Trust Shares on 13:44 - Nov 23 by waynekerr55 |
Sorry - I meant examples using this part of the legislation.
On a serious note, have you answered Darran's question from earlier? |
No, Wayne, but I think it is great your can focus on smearing me rather than in any way acknowledge the continued lies, deception and incompetence coming from the "Trust".
Really says something about your character, I feel. | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 13:52 - Nov 23 with 3959 views | DafyddHuw |
| Trust Shares on 13:07 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
IF the "Trust" have competent legal representation they should have a near watertight case that would allow them to bring an action under the Companies Act to force the company (effectively the shareholders) to purchase all their shares at the same price paid to the others in July.
However, as I see it the case is so compelling that it ought never go to court, with the American's highly likely to pay up if a credible threat of legal action is made.
We've had 3 false starts from the "Trust" so far, so what exactly is holding up matters?
This is why the questions about Dai Little are so imporetant:
1. Is he competent?
2. How much are him and his associates being paid by the "Trust"/do they have a vested interest in dragging this out? (That the "Trust has been lying about this sort of thing again is a completely seperate matter) |
Apart from the Dai Little (who he?} stuff, this is spot on.
You won't get any answers though mate. A few of us have been trying for ages. Blood, stone.
I'm hoping someone will answer at the AGM. |  | | |
| Trust Shares on 13:53 - Nov 23 with 3954 views | NeathJack |
| Trust Shares on 13:50 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
No, Wayne, but I think it is great your can focus on smearing me rather than in any way acknowledge the continued lies, deception and incompetence coming from the "Trust".
Really says something about your character, I feel. |
So are you saying you can't or you won't cite examples? |  | | |
| Trust Shares on 13:55 - Nov 23 with 3947 views | Darran |
| Trust Shares on 13:50 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
No, Wayne, but I think it is great your can focus on smearing me rather than in any way acknowledge the continued lies, deception and incompetence coming from the "Trust".
Really says something about your character, I feel. |
Why don't you just answer it then? |  |
| |
| Trust Shares on 13:57 - Nov 23 with 3941 views | Shaky |
| Trust Shares on 13:52 - Nov 23 by DafyddHuw |
Apart from the Dai Little (who he?} stuff, this is spot on.
You won't get any answers though mate. A few of us have been trying for ages. Blood, stone.
I'm hoping someone will answer at the AGM. |
Dail Little has been the Trust's legal since maybe 2006 and a Trust board member for some time, and is seemilngly solely responsible for the Trust's legal strategy and moves.
Who along with other legal advisors no doubt nominated by Little the being paid unknown sums by the Trust, that have not been disclosed as part of this supposedly exhaustive Cozy conflict of interest witchhunt. | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 14:00 - Nov 23 with 3929 views | Shaky |
| Trust Shares on 13:55 - Nov 23 by Darran |
Why don't you just answer it then? |
I have answered it enough times, as you know well, Desperate.
You're just going round in circles like your mate "Honest" Phil. | |
| |
| Trust Shares on 14:00 - Nov 23 with 3929 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Shares on 13:50 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
No, Wayne, but I think it is great your can focus on smearing me rather than in any way acknowledge the continued lies, deception and incompetence coming from the "Trust".
Really says something about your character, I feel. |
Where have I smeared you?
I actually think that this place has a less rich debate as you pose some questions that need answering, regardless of what the masses may think. And you know that to be true based on our discussions via PM.
I think if you also go through my previous posts (not that you would as you have better things to do), you'll see that once the info regarding HC came out, my unequivocal stance was for him to step down, or be removed. Should further information come to light, then I shall discuss it on it's own merits. Apologies for my pragmatic take, but that's how I approach things. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
