| Today's Trust E-mail. 10:05 - Oct 8 with 19025 views | Pegojack |
It must be crystal clear to everyone by now that the current and previous owners are treating the Trust and by implication the fanbase with complete contempt.
Get them into court ASAP. [Post edited 8 Oct 2018 10:07]
|  | | |  |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 13:36 - Oct 9 with 2823 views | E20Jack |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 13:22 - Oct 9 by Uxbridge |
Disingenuous.
The reason for accepting the deal was because it was the least worst option at the time. |
...only it wasn’t. |  |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 13:39 - Oct 9 with 2823 views | Uxbridge |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 11:47 - Oct 9 by Darran |
Look I’ve met Uxbridge a few times and I think he’s a thoroughly decent chap and I voted for him at the last election,Chrissy is right It doesn't matter what he said last year or whenever, if he thought it was the right call at the time and believed in it.
The problem is here Uxbridge pushed/proposed/advocated (call it what you want) the non legal route on here many times in the lead up to the vote and now he’s basically saying he didn’t that’s just weird. |
Ah Darren. If only that's what I said.
I voted for the deal, based on the situation and information at the time. No dispute there and I stand by that, as everyone else who voted either way should.
Stating that view is not campaigning against legal action unless you're taking a very perverse view of things. It's voting for an alternative. I certainly didn't include anything against legal action in my election statement as the Rt Hon member for Anusol has stated on Page 2. |  |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 13:40 - Oct 9 with 2820 views | Uxbridge |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 13:36 - Oct 9 by E20Jack |
...only it wasn’t. |
Maybe not. Nothing is as certain as some would like to believe. | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 13:47 - Oct 9 with 2802 views | Darran |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 13:39 - Oct 9 by Uxbridge |
Ah Darren. If only that's what I said.
I voted for the deal, based on the situation and information at the time. No dispute there and I stand by that, as everyone else who voted either way should.
Stating that view is not campaigning against legal action unless you're taking a very perverse view of things. It's voting for an alternative. I certainly didn't include anything against legal action in my election statement as the Rt Hon member for Anusol has stated on Page 2. |
You made many posts that were pushing against legal action. I don’t understand why you’re saying you didn’t. You did. |  |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 13:51 - Oct 9 with 2788 views | ItchySphincter |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 13:22 - Oct 9 by Uxbridge |
Disingenuous.
The reason for accepting the deal was because it was the least worst option at the time. |
I'm not questioning or criticising your reasoning. Each to their own, I don't even want to go around in circles about this as 'no action' was a popular choice and won the day in any case, but, you can't say that you didn't advise against legal action because you did by advising to accept a deal. I have no problem with you changing your mind. |  |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 14:11 - Oct 9 with 2746 views | Uxbridge |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 13:51 - Oct 9 by ItchySphincter |
I'm not questioning or criticising your reasoning. Each to their own, I don't even want to go around in circles about this as 'no action' was a popular choice and won the day in any case, but, you can't say that you didn't advise against legal action because you did by advising to accept a deal. I have no problem with you changing your mind. |
And that's my point, voting in favour of the deal isn't the same as advising against legal action.
Take the situation right now for example, with no deal on the table, the options are legal vs not and the legal case is largely the same as it was then. If I was against legal action, I'd be voting for the status quo, which I won't be as IMO it is the worst option of all.
Equally, if there is a deal on the table before the 2018 vote, it doesn't follow I'll vote for it. There are several red lines I couldn't accept. My views on the working relationship aren't the same as they were 18 months ago either. Like everything, judge it all on its merits at the time.
But yes, round and round. I think that covers it. | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 14:17 - Oct 9 with 2734 views | Uxbridge |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 13:47 - Oct 9 by Darran |
You made many posts that were pushing against legal action. I don’t understand why you’re saying you didn’t. You did. |
The only times I ever commented "negatively" about legal action was when certain people said it was a certain win in court and it would have no adverse consequences whatsoever. The former is demonstrably incorrect. The latter is an option, but still stands. Then and now.
Saying that, none of the above rules out legal action as a viable option if it's the best or least worst. | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 14:37 - Oct 9 with 2704 views | Shaky |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 14:17 - Oct 9 by Uxbridge |
The only times I ever commented "negatively" about legal action was when certain people said it was a certain win in court and it would have no adverse consequences whatsoever. The former is demonstrably incorrect. The latter is an option, but still stands. Then and now.
Saying that, none of the above rules out legal action as a viable option if it's the best or least worst. |
Litigation would bring negative consequences like Team Kaplan not engaging at all in any discussions whatsoever about the Trust's shareholding? Withholding management information?
By their actions they have shown they have nothing but contempt for the Trust's softly-softly approach. I am genuinely stunned you do not appear ot have grasped that yet.
Furthermore, given they are now in clear breach of the pre-trial guidelines there is a high probability legal costs will be awarded against them even in the unlikely event the Unfair Prejudice action is unsuccessful.
That means litigation is in effect a shot to nothing. You have nothing to lose.
And since relations can't deteriorate further, you might in fact suddenly find Kaplan susceptible to negotiation if you demonstrate a modicum of resolve to proceed to litigation.
Otherwise we are simply back to the bizarre farce of 2 years ago of restated Trust ultimatums. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 14:53 - Oct 9 with 2672 views | E20Jack |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 14:17 - Oct 9 by Uxbridge |
The only times I ever commented "negatively" about legal action was when certain people said it was a certain win in court and it would have no adverse consequences whatsoever. The former is demonstrably incorrect. The latter is an option, but still stands. Then and now.
Saying that, none of the above rules out legal action as a viable option if it's the best or least worst. |
I think we have all established by now Darran is a liar. Not sure why you keep responding to him. | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 15:07 - Oct 9 with 2662 views | Uxbridge |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 14:37 - Oct 9 by Shaky |
Litigation would bring negative consequences like Team Kaplan not engaging at all in any discussions whatsoever about the Trust's shareholding? Withholding management information?
By their actions they have shown they have nothing but contempt for the Trust's softly-softly approach. I am genuinely stunned you do not appear ot have grasped that yet.
Furthermore, given they are now in clear breach of the pre-trial guidelines there is a high probability legal costs will be awarded against them even in the unlikely event the Unfair Prejudice action is unsuccessful.
That means litigation is in effect a shot to nothing. You have nothing to lose.
And since relations can't deteriorate further, you might in fact suddenly find Kaplan susceptible to negotiation if you demonstrate a modicum of resolve to proceed to litigation.
Otherwise we are simply back to the bizarre farce of 2 years ago of restated Trust ultimatums. |
I wasn't actually talking about the Trust or its relationship with the club. I was talking about the club itself.
Shot to nothing? Nothing to lose? If only.
I'm not really following your post here. The Trust path is set. It has been for months. A consultation in the near future regarding the options is the logical consequence of those. In the absence of any deal arising from mediation, there will be a vote in the near future on legal action or not. | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 15:41 - Oct 9 with 2610 views | Shaky |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 15:07 - Oct 9 by Uxbridge |
I wasn't actually talking about the Trust or its relationship with the club. I was talking about the club itself.
Shot to nothing? Nothing to lose? If only.
I'm not really following your post here. The Trust path is set. It has been for months. A consultation in the near future regarding the options is the logical consequence of those. In the absence of any deal arising from mediation, there will be a vote in the near future on legal action or not. |
The path is set?
According to the pre-trial guidelines the maximum period allowed for a response to your claim is 2 months overdue!
2 months.
And now you are writing to say if you don't hear anything soon we will have no choice other than to start a consultation process.
This oozes weakness and lack of resolve.
When you embarked on this latest course of action back in the early spring you assured members it was imperative to follow the pre-trial guidelines.
Get on with it. Clearly you will receive no form of constructive proposal from Kaplan before you show some teeth.
As for your remark about your concern for the well-being of the club, I have some concerns too and have set them out. But we are all in the dark about what your concerns specifically may be. Perhaps you would be good enough to share? | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 16:26 - Oct 9 with 2571 views | Shaky |
. . .and just to reiterate, my concern is that Kaplan could walk away rather than cough up the £22 million odd for a forced sale of the Trust's stake.
However, if we break this down we are in any case in a position where Kaplan appears unwilling to put any new capital into the club as things stand.
So the worst case scenario of Kaplan walking away doesn't really affect the immediate financing position.
Of course it doesn't make it better either, so what the Trust can do to mitigate the overall financing risk is to start thinking about drawing up some sort of memorandum and a short list of potential financial investors, in the event it ends up with control of the club.
As the news about the potential buyout consortium for Hull shows there is appetite out there. Get proactive and think about how that may be tapped, rather then remain paralysed by total risk aversion. [Post edited 9 Oct 2018 16:54]
| |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:58 - Oct 9 with 2481 views | MoscowJack |
I'm still pretty convinced that the Yanks will stretch this out for as long as they can. Longer and longer and longer. They'll stall at each and every stage and get the best representation that they can find.
They'll add as much cost to the Trust's side too, which will include as many appeals (should they lose) as they can possibly muster. I would put good money on the Yanks believing they can blow that nest egg that the Trust has got pretty damn easily.
£800k doesn't last long when courts and lawyers are involved, even if someone advisors are doing it for almost nothing.
That's my biggest worry re. this legal case. |  |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 19:41 - Oct 9 with 2439 views | Wingstandwood |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:58 - Oct 9 by MoscowJack |
I'm still pretty convinced that the Yanks will stretch this out for as long as they can. Longer and longer and longer. They'll stall at each and every stage and get the best representation that they can find.
They'll add as much cost to the Trust's side too, which will include as many appeals (should they lose) as they can possibly muster. I would put good money on the Yanks believing they can blow that nest egg that the Trust has got pretty damn easily.
£800k doesn't last long when courts and lawyers are involved, even if someone advisors are doing it for almost nothing.
That's my biggest worry re. this legal case. |
I'm also of the opinion that the Yanks have zero intention of honouring any promises and are playing a treacherous and utterly despicable low-life game. A case of dragged kicking and screaming. I still wish legal action to proceed however!
A bit off subject maybe? A few Omagh bomb plotters were taken to civil court and deemed guilty and ordered to pay up compensation to the families of that atrocities victims.....They are yet to receive a single penny. I still reckon a legal victory still has a plus because the likes of Jenkins, Morgan, Dineen, Van Zweden, the Yanks etc will be written forever into SCFC history and supporter folklore to be lowlife scum. That'll redress the appalling JTAK myth and propaganda! |  |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 20:38 - Oct 9 with 2392 views | bonymine |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 19:41 - Oct 9 by Wingstandwood |
I'm also of the opinion that the Yanks have zero intention of honouring any promises and are playing a treacherous and utterly despicable low-life game. A case of dragged kicking and screaming. I still wish legal action to proceed however!
A bit off subject maybe? A few Omagh bomb plotters were taken to civil court and deemed guilty and ordered to pay up compensation to the families of that atrocities victims.....They are yet to receive a single penny. I still reckon a legal victory still has a plus because the likes of Jenkins, Morgan, Dineen, Van Zweden, the Yanks etc will be written forever into SCFC history and supporter folklore to be lowlife scum. That'll redress the appalling JTAK myth and propaganda! |
This 100% again.
And Nick was right too about the stalling tactics of these Hedge Fund Yankee asset strippers ruining OUR Club as well as ‘Swansea’s Finest Sellout Kunts .........in no particular order ;
Jenkins
Dineen
Morgan
The Clog
Sorry Tenko you only had 0.1% so you’re not as big a Kunt as the rest of the Judas Kunts .......😉😉 |  |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 23:27 - Oct 9 with 2304 views | DJack |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 11:26 - Oct 9 by _ |
It doesn't matter what you said last year or whenever, if you thought it was the right call at the time and believed in it, all the more credit to you.
If things progress and you change your mind on certain aspects, all the more credit for you in being man enough to again, say what you believe.
I understand you're in a difficult situation sometimes with legalities but it's more than refreshing and helpful to see the trust people engaging with supporters.
Just carry on exactly as you are. Some things I'll disagree with, some things I'll agree.
What's never in question is your motives or you integrity. Not one iota. |
Considering your issues with the Trust and it's board I think that you have made an awesome post. You neither need nor want my approbation but you are still going to get it, well done mate. |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 00:00 - Oct 10 with 2288 views | _ |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 23:27 - Oct 9 by DJack |
Considering your issues with the Trust and it's board I think that you have made an awesome post. You neither need nor want my approbation but you are still going to get it, well done mate. |
You're a tough one to call, you. Sometimes you're a stand up guy, sometimes I can't work you out, but no doubt you'd say the same about me. Ha.
Cheers 👠|  |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 08:41 - Oct 10 with 2150 views | Jinxy |
Apologies if someone's already posted this scenario, but I do wonder whether the owners would effectively hold a gun to the Trust's head, by threatening to not invest (!) in new players, or reduce wage bill even more aggressively in order to reserve funding for any share sale in favour of the Trust down the legal line, which would stunt our excellent growth on the pitch? Perhaps those better informed can answer this.
I voted for legal action, and most probably would again if no progressive deal were to be on offer, by the way. I do hope the owners wise up, do the honourable thing, start talking properly and treating the Trust (and therefore fans) with respect. |  | | |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 09:27 - Oct 10 with 2125 views | MoscowJack |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 08:41 - Oct 10 by Jinxy |
Apologies if someone's already posted this scenario, but I do wonder whether the owners would effectively hold a gun to the Trust's head, by threatening to not invest (!) in new players, or reduce wage bill even more aggressively in order to reserve funding for any share sale in favour of the Trust down the legal line, which would stunt our excellent growth on the pitch? Perhaps those better informed can answer this.
I voted for legal action, and most probably would again if no progressive deal were to be on offer, by the way. I do hope the owners wise up, do the honourable thing, start talking properly and treating the Trust (and therefore fans) with respect. |
I think you're close to the Yanks' ace up their sleeve.
I think the COULD simply say "we've put £20m into the club to cover the last Jan window and losses since relegation so you have to match it, as you own 21%".
The Trust would then be forced to stump up £4.2m, which they don't have.
Without seeing the financial accounts, it would be hard to prove exactly that it's true, but I imagine that they wouldn't be allowed access to the accounts if they were forced to contribute such an amount.
There's even the possibility that they said "we're going to spend £10m in January" (which would appease many fans) so where's your £2.1m please?".
The litigation fund would disappear overnight...and that's the worst case scenario as I see it. | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 10:13 - Oct 10 with 2097 views | BarrySwan |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 09:27 - Oct 10 by MoscowJack |
I think you're close to the Yanks' ace up their sleeve.
I think the COULD simply say "we've put £20m into the club to cover the last Jan window and losses since relegation so you have to match it, as you own 21%".
The Trust would then be forced to stump up £4.2m, which they don't have.
Without seeing the financial accounts, it would be hard to prove exactly that it's true, but I imagine that they wouldn't be allowed access to the accounts if they were forced to contribute such an amount.
There's even the possibility that they said "we're going to spend £10m in January" (which would appease many fans) so where's your £2.1m please?".
The litigation fund would disappear overnight...and that's the worst case scenario as I see it. |
I don't claim to be an expert or even an informed amateur in the ways of company law.
But is it the law that if one party with share ownership and who appears to be making all the decisions puts money into the company that it follows that all other shareholders have to do the same despite having no input into the decision?
Which is what you appear to be suggesting. [Post edited 10 Oct 2018 10:14]
| | | |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 10:26 - Oct 10 with 2090 views | MoscowJack |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 10:13 - Oct 10 by BarrySwan |
I don't claim to be an expert or even an informed amateur in the ways of company law.
But is it the law that if one party with share ownership and who appears to be making all the decisions puts money into the company that it follows that all other shareholders have to do the same despite having no input into the decision?
Which is what you appear to be suggesting. [Post edited 10 Oct 2018 10:14]
|
I'm definitely not 100% sure either, BarrySwan, but I think this is the case, or close to it.
If the Yanks feel it's necessary to put in £5m, the Trust would have to match 21% of it, which they couldn't, of course. I don't know what the Trust's options or powers would be (considering the Yanks have the necessary voting rights) but the biggest concern would be the dilution of the Trust's shares, which is very possible.
Doing this would surely turn all the fans against the Yanks but all the Yanks have to do is raise their hands and say "well, y'all wanted investment!" !!!! | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 10:45 - Oct 10 with 2060 views | E20Jack |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 10:26 - Oct 10 by MoscowJack |
I'm definitely not 100% sure either, BarrySwan, but I think this is the case, or close to it.
If the Yanks feel it's necessary to put in £5m, the Trust would have to match 21% of it, which they couldn't, of course. I don't know what the Trust's options or powers would be (considering the Yanks have the necessary voting rights) but the biggest concern would be the dilution of the Trust's shares, which is very possible.
Doing this would surely turn all the fans against the Yanks but all the Yanks have to do is raise their hands and say "well, y'all wanted investment!" !!!! |
You say that.
The vast majority of people I see talking about it are dreaming of the yanks putting their own money into the club and are criticising them for not doing so.
I don’t think many people give two hoots about the Trust, they just want to see PL football regardless of the potential negative impact. | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 11:56 - Oct 10 with 2009 views | Shaky |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 10:13 - Oct 10 by BarrySwan |
I don't claim to be an expert or even an informed amateur in the ways of company law.
But is it the law that if one party with share ownership and who appears to be making all the decisions puts money into the company that it follows that all other shareholders have to do the same despite having no input into the decision?
Which is what you appear to be suggesting. [Post edited 10 Oct 2018 10:14]
|
No.
Under English Company Law, existing shareholders are automatically granted the right to buy into any new issues of shares in the same percent of the issue as their existing shareholding. (in the absence of specific shareholder resolutions that say something else).
To be clear this is a right and not an obligation, and there is no problem with Trust declining to take up their rights to buy any new shares issued.
The problem is that the value of the club has objectively plunged, and any new issue of shares to raise a meaningful amount would reduce the Trust's ownership stake in the club through the effect known as dilution.
However, the Trust still has a route to sell its shares back to the company at the same price Kaplan paid in 2016 via the unfair prejudice legal action, which is much higher than the current value today (at least 5 times).
And you can't have it both ways, no dilution and still get paid for the shares. [Post edited 10 Oct 2018 12:30]
| |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 12:08 - Oct 10 with 2002 views | Shaky |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 09:27 - Oct 10 by MoscowJack |
I think you're close to the Yanks' ace up their sleeve.
I think the COULD simply say "we've put £20m into the club to cover the last Jan window and losses since relegation so you have to match it, as you own 21%".
The Trust would then be forced to stump up £4.2m, which they don't have.
Without seeing the financial accounts, it would be hard to prove exactly that it's true, but I imagine that they wouldn't be allowed access to the accounts if they were forced to contribute such an amount.
There's even the possibility that they said "we're going to spend £10m in January" (which would appease many fans) so where's your £2.1m please?".
The litigation fund would disappear overnight...and that's the worst case scenario as I see it. |
Let's be clear here.
It is not about pretending there is some sort of imaginary investment need to pull a fast one on the Trust.
12 first team squad members left the club during the summer.
A further 11 are due to head out the door at the end of next season.
Think about the magnitude of that. It equates to roughly 100% staff turnover in the first team squad in a year!
That would be cataclysmic in any normal organisation, and I have never heard of a professional sports team undergo anything similar, short of maybe some American team where collective bargaining broke down and owners sacked the lot, but without facing any relegation risk.
And the backdrop to this mass staff turnover according to my numbers is estimated debt of around £45million currently.
I could be wrong about that though. For example Jenkins could have been on the GoCompare site and found cheap insurance that will cover Bony's astronomical salary and the debt might instead be £35 million.
Regardless money needs to be found to replace or rehire that huge chunk of the squad otherwise heading out of the door next summer. And that can only come through promotion or the shareholders putting in new money.
Unfortunately both of those options look like gambles at this point in time, and that is not a good situation to be in. | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 00:47 - Feb 1 with 1129 views | chad |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 21:06 - Oct 8 by Uxbridge |
I said I'd vote for the deal. That isn't remotely the same thing.
My issue with legal action was the way certain people on here were, and continue to, stating it's a guaranteed win. There's no such thing. Anyone who thinks there is doesn't know what they're on about. You can see comments like Spratty's earlier where she still states it.
It's a different kettle of fish entirely if there's no deal on the table though. The gamble is much less, or rather the alternative isn't acceptable enough. |
Sorry Ux did say I would look this out for you. You said.....
[l]My issue with legal action was the way certain people on here were, and continue to, stating it's a guaranteed win. There's no such thing. Anyone who thinks there is doesn't know what they're on about. You can see comments like Spratty's earlier where she still states it.
So let’s address this first (we can address your other false statements later).
If you are not lying please point out where I ever said that our legal case was a “guaranteed win” let alone repeatedly said it, as your comment, that I still state it, indicates.
Of course I have never ever said that. In fact again and again I quoted precisely what the Trust told us Counsel said i.e. we had a strong case.
In fact I would also be interested to know who the ‘certain people on here’ were who you state ‘were, and continue to, stating it's a guaranteed win.’ and when they said it. Of course this is an aside to the lies you told about me but I cannot recall seeing anyone saying that, as if I had seen that I would have corrected it. Just as I corrected the member at a previous meeting who thought we could get the compensation and keep all our shares, because members should not be misled or fed lies most especially by members of the Trust Board.
I look forward to your evidence that I here and previously said our legal case was a ‘guaranteed win’. Otherwise an apology is in order for your lies about me and misleading the members you represent with lies about another member in relation to our legal case. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
