| Trust members, 09:57 - Apr 27 with 3843 views | JackUlation |
Aother bad move by the Trust, having Trust Memberss sitting in the Directors box at last nights game, surely this should not be happening ?
|  | | |  |
| Trust members, on 10:01 - Apr 27 with 2911 views | KeithHaynes |
It should never have happened all along.
One of my points the other day which was again twisted. |  |
| |
| Trust members, on 10:26 - Apr 27 with 2883 views | Chief |
Doesn't surprise me now. Apparently one of the deal makers was having a seat in the box. Which isn't a victory at all just vanity.
Pathetic. |  |
| |
| Trust members, on 10:28 - Apr 27 with 2882 views | whiterock |
We have a supporters director and he/she is entitled to be there, others get to meet directors and dignatories at other clubs and represent our club as best they can, so why not. Its probably good to get to know the president, high ranking officers and senior figures within the Swansea business community including leaders of councils too. The Trust MUST always be represented IMHO [Post edited 27 Apr 2022 10:30]
| | | |
| Trust members, on 10:35 - Apr 27 with 2861 views | Chief |
| Trust members, on 10:28 - Apr 27 by whiterock |
We have a supporters director and he/she is entitled to be there, others get to meet directors and dignatories at other clubs and represent our club as best they can, so why not. Its probably good to get to know the president, high ranking officers and senior figures within the Swansea business community including leaders of councils too. The Trust MUST always be represented IMHO [Post edited 27 Apr 2022 10:30]
|
Yea I agree, at least one trust member has always been a director, so I don't think it's a good look to have no representation in the box ever, but should be just the directors themselves, not other trust hangers on. Also a better look for the club to have a Supporters trust member in the box - shows a united integrated front.
But it should definitely not be treated as a perk and it should be done in a fully professional manner. | |
| |
| Trust members, on 10:45 - Apr 27 with 2847 views | whiterock |
| Trust members, on 10:35 - Apr 27 by Chief |
Yea I agree, at least one trust member has always been a director, so I don't think it's a good look to have no representation in the box ever, but should be just the directors themselves, not other trust hangers on. Also a better look for the club to have a Supporters trust member in the box - shows a united integrated front.
But it should definitely not be treated as a perk and it should be done in a fully professional manner. |
The director is not always available and IMHO, should be deputised, never a perk, its more of a chore | | | |
| Trust members, on 15:08 - Apr 27 with 2782 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
Fans see the Trust as a 'Trade union' not an owner. You own a business to make money and grow a brand.
The members think like 'workers' not 'owners' and 'customers'. This is part of our Welsh working class heritage linked to the Labour party. The garnered huge mistrust and allied to semi biblical soundbites was very seductive to the members. "hedge funds" "asset stripping" "syphing off fund" "accounts say nothing" "wheres all the money gone" "failed roofer" and of course the ubiquitous "sellouts".
The Trust is there to be a 'pain in the neck' to the other owners like a trade union might see it. It is bogus. They have certainly been that. |  |
| |
| Trust members, on 15:20 - Apr 27 with 2776 views | Chief |
| Trust members, on 15:08 - Apr 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Fans see the Trust as a 'Trade union' not an owner. You own a business to make money and grow a brand.
The members think like 'workers' not 'owners' and 'customers'. This is part of our Welsh working class heritage linked to the Labour party. The garnered huge mistrust and allied to semi biblical soundbites was very seductive to the members. "hedge funds" "asset stripping" "syphing off fund" "accounts say nothing" "wheres all the money gone" "failed roofer" and of course the ubiquitous "sellouts".
The Trust is there to be a 'pain in the neck' to the other owners like a trade union might see it. It is bogus. They have certainly been that. |
Here we go again. More nonsense waffle from the propaganda bot.
And none of which references the trust being present in the directors box. | |
| |
| Trust members, on 15:24 - Apr 27 with 2771 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust members, on 15:20 - Apr 27 by Chief |
Here we go again. More nonsense waffle from the propaganda bot.
And none of which references the trust being present in the directors box. |
Some fans on here believe the Trust people should not be in the directors box. They are directors. I have investigated this strange concept in terms of Welsh culture and at some depth. My thoughts are original and unique but provide an insight.
It is an educational service given for free. You can stick to talking about "sellouts" and other formulaic sound bites. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust members, on 15:40 - Apr 27 with 2756 views | Chief |
| Trust members, on 15:24 - Apr 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Some fans on here believe the Trust people should not be in the directors box. They are directors. I have investigated this strange concept in terms of Welsh culture and at some depth. My thoughts are original and unique but provide an insight.
It is an educational service given for free. You can stick to talking about "sellouts" and other formulaic sound bites. |
There we are an actual opinion on the thread subject. You are capable of it.
Well the first 2 setences. The rest you've relapsed into more irrelevant waffle. | |
| |
| Trust members, on 17:11 - Apr 27 with 2701 views | Treforys_Jack |
Thought the trust had disappeared since making that deal. |  | | |
| Trust members, on 18:02 - Apr 27 with 2678 views | Lorax |
| Trust members, on 15:24 - Apr 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Some fans on here believe the Trust people should not be in the directors box. They are directors. I have investigated this strange concept in terms of Welsh culture and at some depth. My thoughts are original and unique but provide an insight.
It is an educational service given for free. You can stick to talking about "sellouts" and other formulaic sound bites. |
The Trust are not directors, they have a director on the board who is the trusts representative.
There's nothing educational in any of it' just more inane, thread hijacking, ramblings.
Original and unique, nah, just more of the same from you, it doesn't get any more formulaic than that. | | | |
| Trust members, on 19:08 - Apr 27 with 2631 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust members, on 18:02 - Apr 27 by Lorax |
The Trust are not directors, they have a director on the board who is the trusts representative.
There's nothing educational in any of it' just more inane, thread hijacking, ramblings.
Original and unique, nah, just more of the same from you, it doesn't get any more formulaic than that. |
One of them is a director for sure. Listed in companies house no less. It is in black and white and carries with it legal obligations. | |
| |
| Trust members, on 21:22 - Apr 27 with 2583 views | Lorax |
| Trust members, on 19:08 - Apr 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
One of them is a director for sure. Listed in companies house no less. It is in black and white and carries with it legal obligations. |
Umm, yeah, like wot I said, as in....
The Trust are not directors, they have a director on the board who is the trusts representative.
I'm sure you read that even if it seems you didn't comprehend it fully. So endeth the lesson
 | | | |
| Trust members, on 21:53 - Apr 27 with 2573 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust members, on 21:22 - Apr 27 by Lorax |
Umm, yeah, like wot I said, as in....
The Trust are not directors, they have a director on the board who is the trusts representative.
I'm sure you read that even if it seems you didn't comprehend it fully. So endeth the lesson
|
1000 members represented by a director. They do not think like directors but trade unionists,. This was my point.
You will here expressions like. "They should not get too cosy" and they are there to "check the books" and they cannot sign "Non disclosure agreements" for detailed accounting data. Why not?
Employ a man you trust to look after the shop and let him get on with it. Members do not need to know the details. | |
| |
| Trust members, on 22:13 - Apr 27 with 2558 views | Chief |
| Trust members, on 21:53 - Apr 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
1000 members represented by a director. They do not think like directors but trade unionists,. This was my point.
You will here expressions like. "They should not get too cosy" and they are there to "check the books" and they cannot sign "Non disclosure agreements" for detailed accounting data. Why not?
Employ a man you trust to look after the shop and let him get on with it. Members do not need to know the details. |
- trade union analogy makes no sense and I assume you intend it as a slur, but I fail to see how it is.
- correct, they shouldn't get too cosy. They're there to represent the wishes of the fans and therefore shouldn't be charmed into seeing things from the from the other owners viewpoint (who represent their own interests). What's the point in them seeing the books if they sign a NDA so they can't share the findings with the rest of the trust board or brief the members? Good or bad?
- what about a woman? So you're saying the trust should employ someone to scrutinize the the club's books? And are you saying this is person that should be in the directors box? So this person is going to look at the books and keep the findings to themselves? How can a fluid trust board with regular changes find someone they Trust? | |
| |
| Trust members, on 22:22 - Apr 27 with 2550 views | Lorax |
| Trust members, on 21:53 - Apr 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
1000 members represented by a director. They do not think like directors but trade unionists,. This was my point.
You will here expressions like. "They should not get too cosy" and they are there to "check the books" and they cannot sign "Non disclosure agreements" for detailed accounting data. Why not?
Employ a man you trust to look after the shop and let him get on with it. Members do not need to know the details. |
It's hardly the same thing as employing someone to run a shop. The trust board are elected and elected people should be open to scrutiny, everything should be transparent.
Doing things the way you suggest is simply a road to corruption and disaster, without transparency there is no accountability.
Your first line isn't exactly what you said but never mind, trade union reps are elected and their constituents expect information and transparency there too. Any union rep that hides things from their members is probably corrupt too.
There was an NHS union rep who once backed a manager for threatening my wife with disciplinary proceedings after a period off sick with epilepsy while she was pregnant, he got a managers job soon after, that is why transparency and accountability are so important, no elected representative should ever be bought off. | | | |
| Trust members, on 23:24 - Apr 27 with 2522 views | max936 |
| Trust members, on 22:22 - Apr 27 by Lorax |
It's hardly the same thing as employing someone to run a shop. The trust board are elected and elected people should be open to scrutiny, everything should be transparent.
Doing things the way you suggest is simply a road to corruption and disaster, without transparency there is no accountability.
Your first line isn't exactly what you said but never mind, trade union reps are elected and their constituents expect information and transparency there too. Any union rep that hides things from their members is probably corrupt too.
There was an NHS union rep who once backed a manager for threatening my wife with disciplinary proceedings after a period off sick with epilepsy while she was pregnant, he got a managers job soon after, that is why transparency and accountability are so important, no elected representative should ever be bought off. |
Lorax, to Quote the word Smith that is Mark Twain "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” |  |
| |
| Trust members, on 00:56 - Apr 28 with 2499 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust members, on 22:22 - Apr 27 by Lorax |
It's hardly the same thing as employing someone to run a shop. The trust board are elected and elected people should be open to scrutiny, everything should be transparent.
Doing things the way you suggest is simply a road to corruption and disaster, without transparency there is no accountability.
Your first line isn't exactly what you said but never mind, trade union reps are elected and their constituents expect information and transparency there too. Any union rep that hides things from their members is probably corrupt too.
There was an NHS union rep who once backed a manager for threatening my wife with disciplinary proceedings after a period off sick with epilepsy while she was pregnant, he got a managers job soon after, that is why transparency and accountability are so important, no elected representative should ever be bought off. |
The detailed books relating to Swansea city are confidential and not open to viewing by the public and Swansea s football rivals. This is the same for any business.
The statutory accounts are free to see and published every year. The club is well run balances the books and has generally invested in infrastructure rather than paying dividends.
The board of Swansea city voluntarily included a fans ownership of 20% when they need not have done so. It was a generous and well meaning act and worked well for 14 years. They have a trusted man on the board that can see everything but not share it with the public.
Member of the Trust should concern themselves with their own affairs. 6 years wasted £400,000 spent of legal fees for a case that never went ahead and lots of very bad publicity for the club which has not done anything wrong. Vilification of the people that brought Swansea from ruin to the Premier league and which a has settled in the championship its rightful place based on population. Even today the Trust has a 4000% return on its investment.
The Trust effectively gave up on dubious case discovering that no one would fund it not surprisingly. | |
| |
| Trust members, on 07:10 - Apr 28 with 2471 views | Chief |
| Trust members, on 00:56 - Apr 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The detailed books relating to Swansea city are confidential and not open to viewing by the public and Swansea s football rivals. This is the same for any business.
The statutory accounts are free to see and published every year. The club is well run balances the books and has generally invested in infrastructure rather than paying dividends.
The board of Swansea city voluntarily included a fans ownership of 20% when they need not have done so. It was a generous and well meaning act and worked well for 14 years. They have a trusted man on the board that can see everything but not share it with the public.
Member of the Trust should concern themselves with their own affairs. 6 years wasted £400,000 spent of legal fees for a case that never went ahead and lots of very bad publicity for the club which has not done anything wrong. Vilification of the people that brought Swansea from ruin to the Premier league and which a has settled in the championship its rightful place based on population. Even today the Trust has a 4000% return on its investment.
The Trust effectively gave up on dubious case discovering that no one would fund it not surprisingly. |
- yea but they also aren't open to viewing by at least one shareholder, let alone other football clubs. Is that the same for any business!?
- Well we currently do have an outstanding debt of £10million.
- No they didn't - they weren't the board at the time because they hadn't bought their shares. The trust put in their share to pay off Petty just like all of the others. The trust actually paying more than some others, so that's false to say it was a generous act by the others. The trust also acted in ways the others didn't or couldn't remove Petty that shouldn't be underestimated.
- they don't have a trusted man (or woman) on the board who can see everything. So another lie.
- the club itself did nothing wrong and that's why any action wasn't against the club and any bad publicity has been brought upon by the sellouts and Americans and their non compliant immoral conduct during the sale (selllouts who revelled in being 'fans' themselves). Let alone the false club statement issued after the settlement stating the trust had come to terms with the 'club'. A gross and deliberate misappropriation of the facts. Took us to the prem then actively colluded to describe the trust and prevent it from accessing that return you speak of.
- false again - there were funding option. The current trust board (against the will of the members) decided to accept a weak out of court settlement offer instead.
It's astonishing how much you either interpret incorrectly or disingenuously twist to suit your agenda. Difficult to determine how much of it is genuinely innocent or not because you do come across as so extremely niavely, madly enamoured with the sellouts and Americans. | |
| |
| Trust members, on 14:14 - Apr 28 with 2420 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust members, on 07:10 - Apr 28 by Chief |
- yea but they also aren't open to viewing by at least one shareholder, let alone other football clubs. Is that the same for any business!?
- Well we currently do have an outstanding debt of £10million.
- No they didn't - they weren't the board at the time because they hadn't bought their shares. The trust put in their share to pay off Petty just like all of the others. The trust actually paying more than some others, so that's false to say it was a generous act by the others. The trust also acted in ways the others didn't or couldn't remove Petty that shouldn't be underestimated.
- they don't have a trusted man (or woman) on the board who can see everything. So another lie.
- the club itself did nothing wrong and that's why any action wasn't against the club and any bad publicity has been brought upon by the sellouts and Americans and their non compliant immoral conduct during the sale (selllouts who revelled in being 'fans' themselves). Let alone the false club statement issued after the settlement stating the trust had come to terms with the 'club'. A gross and deliberate misappropriation of the facts. Took us to the prem then actively colluded to describe the trust and prevent it from accessing that return you speak of.
- false again - there were funding option. The current trust board (against the will of the members) decided to accept a weak out of court settlement offer instead.
It's astonishing how much you either interpret incorrectly or disingenuously twist to suit your agenda. Difficult to determine how much of it is genuinely innocent or not because you do come across as so extremely niavely, madly enamoured with the sellouts and Americans. |
The only person that needs to see the detailed accounts is the board director. The board director stated that as far as he was concerned there was no evidence of malpractice or similar. If the trust suspect something is amiss they can check the books in detail as long by the board director. The Trust must trust the person they have chosen to do his job properly.
It is stated that this debt will soon be cleared. It is a temporary debt all firms carry. The Trust will be diluted and not before time. Passengers need to feel the pain.
It was a generous act by others. Fan ownership in football clubs was relatively rare at the time. It was generous by the Trust. People working together. A I advised 3 or 4 years ago the Trust "lost their way". You now agree as things have turned out. The betrayal you feel is a the direct result of a failed strategy. The legal case you promoted could not be funded. "The US people might drag it out and have bigger funds". We all knew this in 2016.
You should not use over emotional words like 'lie' and 'sellouts'. The matter is closed and now it the time to take stock and learn. The board member reportedly could see everything. (it was not a lie). The NDA was the condition from report.
There was no action against anyone in reality. It never happened. The Trust threatened to enforce a share holders agreement that was unsuitable for the club. They had no choice but to carry on in contravention of the outdated agreement and the Trust threatened to take them to court Their bluff was called and they surrendered.
You supported an option which saw over half of any award going to third parties from London. Even then they would run out of cash if there as an appeal it seems. You should be ashamed of yourself. If they had run out of money they would then have left them no option but the ask the members. The members would have said "on yer bike you are having a laugh" when a request of £1000 each was submitted.
Defeat was guaranteed. Now they have a partial win of sorts and still in with a chance of a £35m payday. | |
| |
| Trust members, on 15:23 - Apr 28 with 2400 views | Chief |
| Trust members, on 14:14 - Apr 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The only person that needs to see the detailed accounts is the board director. The board director stated that as far as he was concerned there was no evidence of malpractice or similar. If the trust suspect something is amiss they can check the books in detail as long by the board director. The Trust must trust the person they have chosen to do his job properly.
It is stated that this debt will soon be cleared. It is a temporary debt all firms carry. The Trust will be diluted and not before time. Passengers need to feel the pain.
It was a generous act by others. Fan ownership in football clubs was relatively rare at the time. It was generous by the Trust. People working together. A I advised 3 or 4 years ago the Trust "lost their way". You now agree as things have turned out. The betrayal you feel is a the direct result of a failed strategy. The legal case you promoted could not be funded. "The US people might drag it out and have bigger funds". We all knew this in 2016.
You should not use over emotional words like 'lie' and 'sellouts'. The matter is closed and now it the time to take stock and learn. The board member reportedly could see everything. (it was not a lie). The NDA was the condition from report.
There was no action against anyone in reality. It never happened. The Trust threatened to enforce a share holders agreement that was unsuitable for the club. They had no choice but to carry on in contravention of the outdated agreement and the Trust threatened to take them to court Their bluff was called and they surrendered.
You supported an option which saw over half of any award going to third parties from London. Even then they would run out of cash if there as an appeal it seems. You should be ashamed of yourself. If they had run out of money they would then have left them no option but the ask the members. The members would have said "on yer bike you are having a laugh" when a request of £1000 each was submitted.
Defeat was guaranteed. Now they have a partial win of sorts and still in with a chance of a £35m payday. |
- and not even the board director has been allowed to see them despite being a representative of a shareholder. Unless they sign a NDA, which means they can't inform anyone of the findings. As I said. So your first paragraph is invalid.
- it's been stated for over a year that they'll convert. But at least you are acknowledging that there is debt. The trust and other shareholders potentially. I assume you class Huw J as a passenger too now?
- no it wasn't. The trust were s shareholder like all the others at the start, paying more in than others. Right people working another correction of your previous error, well done. Not sure what this next bit relates to? A random propaganda inclusion? No, the betrayal is purely down to the new trust board's decisions. Not necessarily, a QC stated the trust had a strong case, a decision was could have been made to go to court and defend the case on its merits and accept the decision. But no, of course the low road was chosen again.
- Why shouldn't I? I'm not going to airbrush history. They did lie and they did sellout so I'll keep using those terms. What board member could see everything? In relation to what? NDA from what report? What are you on about?
- the sellouts definitely had a choice. Nobody made them sell, nobody made them ignore the agreement, nobody made them knowingly proceed without trying to renegotiating the SHA despite having ample time to do so. There was no gun to their heads. They calculated, conscious, risky decisions made to enrich themselves with no care for the supporters trust who they'd worked alongside for years. But you're right, the trust board meekly surrendered any chance of real justice and action.
- blame the perpetrators - without their conduct there need not be a legal case. The trust engaged who they needed to to get the best service. Of course you'll argue the club were right give away the club's own funds (not the trust's) to an Australian bank. You hypocrite. Hahaha you have got to seriously be a parody act? Me ashamed? For sticking up for a wronged party!? The sellouts who admitted guilt - you like. Fans who wanted them suitably sanctioned - shameful. 
- yea a 'Burnley' chance no doubt. ***Holding company sale pending*** pathetic.
What do you actually get out of this then? You've totally twisted another thread towarss your propaganda, for some reason abandoning the Tate one that you were posting all this guff on. Do you just randomly close your eyes point at the screen and think 'yes I'll post my propaganda monologue for the say on that one'. [Post edited 28 Apr 2022 15:26]
| |
| |
| Trust members, on 15:43 - Apr 28 with 2385 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust members, on 15:23 - Apr 28 by Chief |
- and not even the board director has been allowed to see them despite being a representative of a shareholder. Unless they sign a NDA, which means they can't inform anyone of the findings. As I said. So your first paragraph is invalid.
- it's been stated for over a year that they'll convert. But at least you are acknowledging that there is debt. The trust and other shareholders potentially. I assume you class Huw J as a passenger too now?
- no it wasn't. The trust were s shareholder like all the others at the start, paying more in than others. Right people working another correction of your previous error, well done. Not sure what this next bit relates to? A random propaganda inclusion? No, the betrayal is purely down to the new trust board's decisions. Not necessarily, a QC stated the trust had a strong case, a decision was could have been made to go to court and defend the case on its merits and accept the decision. But no, of course the low road was chosen again.
- Why shouldn't I? I'm not going to airbrush history. They did lie and they did sellout so I'll keep using those terms. What board member could see everything? In relation to what? NDA from what report? What are you on about?
- the sellouts definitely had a choice. Nobody made them sell, nobody made them ignore the agreement, nobody made them knowingly proceed without trying to renegotiating the SHA despite having ample time to do so. There was no gun to their heads. They calculated, conscious, risky decisions made to enrich themselves with no care for the supporters trust who they'd worked alongside for years. But you're right, the trust board meekly surrendered any chance of real justice and action.
- blame the perpetrators - without their conduct there need not be a legal case. The trust engaged who they needed to to get the best service. Of course you'll argue the club were right give away the club's own funds (not the trust's) to an Australian bank. You hypocrite. Hahaha you have got to seriously be a parody act? Me ashamed? For sticking up for a wronged party!? The sellouts who admitted guilt - you like. Fans who wanted them suitably sanctioned - shameful.
- yea a 'Burnley' chance no doubt. ***Holding company sale pending*** pathetic.
What do you actually get out of this then? You've totally twisted another thread towarss your propaganda, for some reason abandoning the Tate one that you were posting all this guff on. Do you just randomly close your eyes point at the screen and think 'yes I'll post my propaganda monologue for the say on that one'. [Post edited 28 Apr 2022 15:26]
|
The board director can see the records under certain conditions. You called it a lie. Poor again.
The ex Chair is not a passenger as he has most probably contributed cash to help the club through Covid and possibly cash to get a resolution to club legal problems. A gift that keeps giving for this great club. CLN have termination dates.
I give credit to all the people who gave in 2002. I myself put £5 in to a bucket. Today I would not do it. The QC was wrong as no one would fund the case having had more time to assess the case. The Trust were told it was a 'last resort' but did not heed these words not even meeting with the US people for mediation. | |
| |
| Trust members, on 15:52 - Apr 28 with 2381 views | Chief |
| Trust members, on 15:43 - Apr 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The board director can see the records under certain conditions. You called it a lie. Poor again.
The ex Chair is not a passenger as he has most probably contributed cash to help the club through Covid and possibly cash to get a resolution to club legal problems. A gift that keeps giving for this great club. CLN have termination dates.
I give credit to all the people who gave in 2002. I myself put £5 in to a bucket. Today I would not do it. The QC was wrong as no one would fund the case having had more time to assess the case. The Trust were told it was a 'last resort' but did not heed these words not even meeting with the US people for mediation. |
- yes the condition being signing an NDA. What are you failing to understand about that?
- the rumour is now that he didn't contribute to the CLN actually and never attends directors or shareholders meetings and hadn't since he left his well paid position. The very definition of a 'passenger' by your logic? Termination dates - when are they then? What happens when it elapses? Do they get their money back? Do they automatically convert?
- so you know better than a QC? I keep telling you, funding was available. As I keep telling you also. The last resort was a direction given to explore all other options first. Such as mediation. Judges look kindly on such things. The trust arranged mediation but no American owners or selllouts attended did they? Let's talk facts not your twisted fantasies - Kaplan, Levein, and all the sellouts refused to attend. Fact. | |
| |
| Trust members, on 17:30 - Apr 28 with 2349 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust members, on 15:52 - Apr 28 by Chief |
- yes the condition being signing an NDA. What are you failing to understand about that?
- the rumour is now that he didn't contribute to the CLN actually and never attends directors or shareholders meetings and hadn't since he left his well paid position. The very definition of a 'passenger' by your logic? Termination dates - when are they then? What happens when it elapses? Do they get their money back? Do they automatically convert?
- so you know better than a QC? I keep telling you, funding was available. As I keep telling you also. The last resort was a direction given to explore all other options first. Such as mediation. Judges look kindly on such things. The trust arranged mediation but no American owners or selllouts attended did they? Let's talk facts not your twisted fantasies - Kaplan, Levein, and all the sellouts refused to attend. Fact. |
Going around in circles again Chief. The case did not go ahead and the matter has been resolved. You can dismantle the soap box. The Trust could not afford to go to court and it was never a good idea. | |
| |
| Trust members, on 19:31 - Apr 28 with 2326 views | Chief |
| Trust members, on 17:30 - Apr 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Going around in circles again Chief. The case did not go ahead and the matter has been resolved. You can dismantle the soap box. The Trust could not afford to go to court and it was never a good idea. |
We'll see if you can practice what you preach and how long for.
I'm the one who actually has the gripe but it's you who constantly feel the need to twist multiple threads towards the case. I simply respond to your disinformation.
But we'll see if you're capable of it. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
