| Building Bridges on 16:12 - Feb 16 with 1546 views | Uxbridge |
| Building Bridges on 15:06 - Feb 16 by Nookiejack |
What would be helpful if you explained if Chineses investors or the like suddenly came to the Trust with an offer for 21% of Trust's shares?
What would happen under the new articles?
If Trust can't sell without Yanks approval - then why would a 3rd party ever conduct due diligence on the club incurring costs to buy the Trusts shares - knowing the Yanks could buy the shares or block the sale.
This would mean it reduces the potential buyers of the Trusts shares hence the value of them is reduced. |
Well, the Articles can be viewed at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04305508/filing-history
More one for the legal types, but doesn't Section 13 cover this? |  |
|  |
| Building Bridges on 16:17 - Feb 16 with 1534 views | Uxbridge |
| Building Bridges on 12:14 - Feb 16 by londonlisa2001 |
The equity does indeed have value. The issue, Ux, is that it has no liquidity, which to be frank amounts to the same thing.
I have said on a few occasions now that it's the new structure that causes the Trust the problem for the future (including rights that have been given to all except the Trust).
That is what has been a potential unfair prejudice, as it means that the shares in Swansea 2002 Ltd (or whatever it's called) will never again need to be sold in order to pass ownership of the club. And as that's where the Trust's shares sit, they could sit there forever and not be sold and it won't make a blind bit of difference as far as control of the club is concerned. The only impact of those shares will be to receive 21% of dividends. And the trust won't be able to do anything with that money. And the US shareholders will put in money for equity (at value, they are not stupid), and that 21% will reduce and reduce. |
Getting a clear and definitive view of the UP side of things is absolutely critical, which is why I'm in favour of getting that further guidance.
As for the future, and the Americans plans, you seem to know more than anything we've been informed. We'll see I guess. I'm not necessarily against additional equity coming into the club if it is for the benefit of the club. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 16:49 - Feb 16 with 1491 views | Loyal |
| Building Bridges on 15:57 - Feb 16 by Uxbridge |
I answered that on Page 1 of this very thread. |
My apologies, thanks 👠|  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Building Bridges on 16:53 - Feb 16 with 1480 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Building Bridges on 16:17 - Feb 16 by Uxbridge |
Getting a clear and definitive view of the UP side of things is absolutely critical, which is why I'm in favour of getting that further guidance.
As for the future, and the Americans plans, you seem to know more than anything we've been informed. We'll see I guess. I'm not necessarily against additional equity coming into the club if it is for the benefit of the club. |
I wasn't saying it would happen Ux, but that it could. They may sell before putting equity in, and the next lot may do so in the way I've described. And I don't believe any likely future owners would hire advisors that are stupid, so if I know what to do to get round the issues why wouldn't they? And the possible problem that they have on UP due to imposed structure (allied with rights of the other shareholders) was pointed out ( by me so I know) several months ago now. |  | | |
| Building Bridges on 19:04 - Feb 16 with 1387 views | siralan |
| Building Bridges on 15:59 - Feb 16 by Uxbridge |
Morgan 5%, Jenkins 5%, Dineen 1%, Katzen 1% |
So you regard these 4 has "very minor share holders" ? Your exact words.
Miss reading retained and sold does not alter anything.
I know you have the good of our club at heart and I appreciate your good
work but you need to stop digging sometimes. | | | |
| Building Bridges on 20:49 - Feb 16 with 2172 views | Nookiejack |
It appears the Trust would be subject to the Right of First Negotiation clause. So would have to inform the Yanks of the sale. They would have 30 days to make an offer. The Trust would have to sell to Yanks if their offer was higher than say Chinese investors.
What is very interesting is the clause if say Chinese made a higher bid - then the Trust could sell to them - if reasonably acceptable to the Yanks.
So what external investor would ever conduct due diligence on the value of the club and resultant value of the Trusts shares, with considerable costs of involved, under current position re: the new articles.
The Chinese investors themselves would be worried that they wouldn't have a future exit - given Yanks could argue that future investors were not reasonably acceptable to them. | | | |
| Building Bridges on 21:10 - Feb 16 with 2148 views | Nookiejack |
| Building Bridges on 20:49 - Feb 16 by Nookiejack |
It appears the Trust would be subject to the Right of First Negotiation clause. So would have to inform the Yanks of the sale. They would have 30 days to make an offer. The Trust would have to sell to Yanks if their offer was higher than say Chinese investors.
What is very interesting is the clause if say Chinese made a higher bid - then the Trust could sell to them - if reasonably acceptable to the Yanks.
So what external investor would ever conduct due diligence on the value of the club and resultant value of the Trusts shares, with considerable costs of involved, under current position re: the new articles.
The Chinese investors themselves would be worried that they wouldn't have a future exit - given Yanks could argue that future investors were not reasonably acceptable to them. |
PS. The Right of First Negotiation also appears to be all one way - in favour of the Yanks.
So when the Yanks decide to sell they don't have to negotiate with the Trust.
This further diminishes the value of the Trust's shares - as no point in potential Chinese investors building a stake in the club by acquiring the Trust's shares - with a view to future ownership - as would not have a first right to then buy the shares off the Yanks - if the Yanks decided to sell. | | | |
| Building Bridges on 22:33 - Feb 16 with 2096 views | Loyal |
Why don't you report them, let the coppers get on with it, and deal with them as convicted criminals thereafter via the civil courts. | |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Building Bridges on 22:52 - Feb 16 with 2072 views | swancity |
| Building Bridges on 22:33 - Feb 16 by Loyal |
Why don't you report them, let the coppers get on with it, and deal with them as convicted criminals thereafter via the civil courts. |
They're more interested in building bridges mun😂
You couldn't make it up. Get shafted and do nothing about it except build fookin bridges.
Seriously get a grip fellas, you're losing all credibility. You have a good chance to restore it if you show some balls for a fight now.... | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Building Bridges on 23:06 - Feb 16 with 2058 views | Quincy999 |
| Building Bridges on 22:33 - Feb 16 by Loyal |
Why don't you report them, let the coppers get on with it, and deal with them as convicted criminals thereafter via the civil courts. |
That's the thing isn't it. Why do the trust have to spend £30,000 on legal advice if it comes under criminal law. If law has been broken then the CPS would act on their own.
This threat of legal action by the Trust is BS. It is the equivalent of holding a banana in your pocket and pretending its a gun. The other shareholders 99.5% know it is BS but they probably think its easier to give a little rather than deal with the disruption and negativity that would result if relations had carried on as they were.
There will be no legal action! | | | |
| Building Bridges on 00:07 - Feb 17 with 2038 views | Loyal |
| Building Bridges on 23:06 - Feb 16 by Quincy999 |
That's the thing isn't it. Why do the trust have to spend £30,000 on legal advice if it comes under criminal law. If law has been broken then the CPS would act on their own.
This threat of legal action by the Trust is BS. It is the equivalent of holding a banana in your pocket and pretending its a gun. The other shareholders 99.5% know it is BS but they probably think its easier to give a little rather than deal with the disruption and negativity that would result if relations had carried on as they were.
There will be no legal action! |
My understanding is that if someone, and that means anyone makes a complaint to the South Wales police then they have to investigate it.
I'm surprised the Trust haven't handed over their paperwork for an investigation. | |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Building Bridges on 00:07 - Feb 17 with 2037 views | skippyjack |
| Building Bridges on 23:06 - Feb 16 by Quincy999 |
That's the thing isn't it. Why do the trust have to spend £30,000 on legal advice if it comes under criminal law. If law has been broken then the CPS would act on their own.
This threat of legal action by the Trust is BS. It is the equivalent of holding a banana in your pocket and pretending its a gun. The other shareholders 99.5% know it is BS but they probably think its easier to give a little rather than deal with the disruption and negativity that would result if relations had carried on as they were.
There will be no legal action! |
F*cking ell.. Huw C was appointed as Trust Director by Trust members..
He can sign anything he wants.. because he was democratically appointed by members in 2015.
Huw C has done nothing illegal.. legally.. he does not have to consult trust members to sign any document's..
Huw C gave the takeover the green light.. because the Americans are actually in control of 68%..
The Trust members appointed Huw C.. and nobody listened to T2C who got absolutely slaughtered by all and sundry.. because he wanted to appoint somebody who was going to put the fans interests first.
The fact that trust members were so trusting.. they did not have a written agreement stating 'Huw C has to consult Trust members before he does anything f*cking stupid' in place..
I bet the Trust still don't have an agreement with their new Director..
[Post edited 17 Feb 2017 0:10]
|  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Building Bridges on 00:12 - Feb 17 with 2028 views | Loyal |
| Building Bridges on 00:07 - Feb 17 by skippyjack |
F*cking ell.. Huw C was appointed as Trust Director by Trust members..
He can sign anything he wants.. because he was democratically appointed by members in 2015.
Huw C has done nothing illegal.. legally.. he does not have to consult trust members to sign any document's..
Huw C gave the takeover the green light.. because the Americans are actually in control of 68%..
The Trust members appointed Huw C.. and nobody listened to T2C who got absolutely slaughtered by all and sundry.. because he wanted to appoint somebody who was going to put the fans interests first.
The fact that trust members were so trusting.. they did not have a written agreement stating 'Huw C has to consult Trust members before he does anything f*cking stupid' in place..
I bet the Trust still don't have an agreement with their new Director..
[Post edited 17 Feb 2017 0:10]
|
I was merely keeping it simple.
1. Has a criminal offence been committed by certain individuals.
Answer - Yes.
2. Report them to the police for the crimes committed.
Scale of difficulty - Not hard. | |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Building Bridges on 00:39 - Feb 17 with 2008 views | skippyjack |
| Building Bridges on 00:12 - Feb 17 by Loyal |
I was merely keeping it simple.
1. Has a criminal offence been committed by certain individuals.
Answer - Yes.
2. Report them to the police for the crimes committed.
Scale of difficulty - Not hard. |
No crime has been committed.. the Americans and sell outs have simply used Huw C.
But there might be something else.. let's say.. if emails were floating around the interweb involving conversations with Huw C..
Some bribery charges and professional procedures have been breached.. the Trust can inform authorities with evidence that their business partners have been breaking business law..
Therefore.. in all likelihood.. the Trust would be sole shareholders.. 79% of Premier League TV earnings would be void.. and the Swans would be in 80 million pound debt.. with a wage bill in excess of 60+ million and with only 21% of TV revenue coming into the club.
So.. if we did decide to expose the Sellouts, Americans and Cooze.. we would in all likelihood end up like Pompey..
And..
The Sellouts
Americans
Cooze
Will be jailed for in all likelihood 3/6 months or some community order for a year..
Is it really worth it.. or the Trust could find 'investors' to stop liquidation.. and let them have a 79% shareholding. | |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Building Bridges on 08:35 - Feb 17 with 1952 views | QJumpingJack |
The Trust need to request the minutes from board meetings from 2015 through to Summer 2016.
And when are the financial accounts going to be published? | | | |
| Building Bridges on 11:17 - Feb 17 with 1901 views | Oldjack |
| Building Bridges on 14:49 - Feb 15 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
It wasn't just the former majority shareholders who screwed us. The Americans also were part of the deliberately deceptive sale. If it implicates them then great. They deserve it.
The Trust, through their own negligence and the deceitful practices of both the former majority shareholders and the Americans have had their shares reduced in value from tens of millions to arguably nothing.
I would absolutely be willing to see them all punished and hopefully see criminal charges brought against anybody who acted illegally. |
Spot on ! never ever trust a liar. Far to much crap has passed under this bridge almost bringing it down at one stage
Huw & co can go and fuk themselves along with the Yanks as far as i'm concerned |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| Building Bridges on 11:18 - Feb 17 with 1900 views | waynekerr55 |
| Building Bridges on 08:35 - Feb 17 by QJumpingJack |
The Trust need to request the minutes from board meetings from 2015 through to Summer 2016.
And when are the financial accounts going to be published? |
Spot on. |  |
| |
| Building Bridges on 11:42 - Feb 17 with 1884 views | QJumpingJack |
There may be one issue.
Were minutes taken? | | | |
| Building Bridges on 20:49 - Feb 17 with 1779 views | Nookiejack |
In Summary this thread as all been about the Trust thinking we are now all safe from relegation under Paul Clement so can make out Trust is building bridges with the the Yanks.
What tosh.
Trust please be so short term looking.
There is a long term play here - total ownership of the club not 'influence'.
Statistically it is only a matter of time before we are relegated - you just need Siggy to get injured at wrong time. We have a 1 in 4 chance of relegation each and every season if you take top 7/8 clubs away from the relegation mix. Over 40 clubs have played in PL since its inception which tells you how fluid it is.
Monetise the £21m stake then just wait until inevitable relegation and take full control of club - Yanks won't then be interested. Fulham had a 10 year tenure in PL. with luck we might also have 20 years. However one day we will be relegated. Don't squander the opportunity of future legacy and the potential of fans of Swansea truly owning the club. | | | |
| Building Bridges on 20:53 - Feb 17 with 1775 views | swancity |
What does this thread show?
That the Trust still don't know their arse from their elbow in relation to the share value despite parting with £24000
That the Trust are happy to building bridges when in fact they should be taking them to the cleaners. Building bridges my arse.
There is still no leadership and things are just drifting aimlessly
The new and old owners have got the Trust exactly where they want them, by the short and curlies. Just keeping them involved ....just enough to keep them happy
They still have no authority despite their endeavours to prove otherwise by being allowed to attend meetings.
But things can change. Stop building bridges. Get that QC to confirm action required and go for it. Win or lose go for it. It may signal the end of the Trust. It may not. But let's be honest, the Trust days are numbered as things stand now. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Building Bridges on 12:33 - Feb 18 with 1698 views | PURe_Evil |
This thread just shows there have been no lessons learnt. |  | | |
| Building Bridges on 14:58 - Feb 18 with 1666 views | monmouth |
| Building Bridges on 20:53 - Feb 17 by swancity |
What does this thread show?
That the Trust still don't know their arse from their elbow in relation to the share value despite parting with £24000
That the Trust are happy to building bridges when in fact they should be taking them to the cleaners. Building bridges my arse.
There is still no leadership and things are just drifting aimlessly
The new and old owners have got the Trust exactly where they want them, by the short and curlies. Just keeping them involved ....just enough to keep them happy
They still have no authority despite their endeavours to prove otherwise by being allowed to attend meetings.
But things can change. Stop building bridges. Get that QC to confirm action required and go for it. Win or lose go for it. It may signal the end of the Trust. It may not. But let's be honest, the Trust days are numbered as things stand now. |
I don't agree with much of your stuff to be honest, but my radar is pretty much in line with this. "Influence" can be removed in a heartbeat if it is not enshrined in legal certainty. I don't know the Trust guys personally, but I'd hope they are not the type to put personal self importance (there is a certain prestige in these positions after all, no matter how voluntary and hard working they are) over action. It would be very human to be flattered and schmoozed in these circumstances. Before anyone gets offended, I am actually projecting my own weakness here.
This is the only time the Trust has any leverage whatsoever. If there is a legal case (and this is where we disagree - the act of actually going to law should always be the very very last resort) then it should be leveraged to get rights enshrined in law. If yanks won't play ball then go for it, whatever "it" is. If there's a case against the sellouts then go for it whatever.
I think any chance of £21m is just total pie in the sky and a red herring to be honest. Never going to happen. |  |
| |
| Building Bridges on 16:39 - Feb 18 with 1638 views | xmastree |
| Building Bridges on 00:07 - Feb 17 by Loyal |
My understanding is that if someone, and that means anyone makes a complaint to the South Wales police then they have to investigate it.
I'm surprised the Trust haven't handed over their paperwork for an investigation. |
i wonder how the old bill would react to a 999 call to say someone has altered the articles of a company. I guess arrest the caller for wasting police time. Its a civil matter not a criminal one. | | | |
| Building Bridges on 16:40 - Feb 18 with 1635 views | xmastree |
| Building Bridges on 22:33 - Feb 16 by Loyal |
Why don't you report them, let the coppers get on with it, and deal with them as convicted criminals thereafter via the civil courts. |
report who btw ? | | | |
| Building Bridges on 16:42 - Feb 18 with 1635 views | Loyal |
| Building Bridges on 16:39 - Feb 18 by xmastree |
i wonder how the old bill would react to a 999 call to say someone has altered the articles of a company. I guess arrest the caller for wasting police time. Its a civil matter not a criminal one. |
It's already been confirmed that a criminal act has taken place as per Uxbridge post from the legal advice. So not entirely sure where you are coming from.
As for 999 calls, I'm not sure this is an easrenders situation, reports to the authorities can be made with far less drama, and a little but more common sense. | |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
