| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 17:53 - Dec 31 with 2573 views | Yossarian |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 17:08 - Dec 31 by Private_Partz |
Jenkins may very well be engineering his own downfall to get out. Can he really be so misinformed to issue such erroneous stuff otherwise?
To repeat myself, we have to be very careful with the name calling and personal abuse.
If he does fall on his sword I am sure he will go out blaming all those ungrateful supporters and nasty internet people for his dilemma, and this would go live with full support of the Cardiff based media.
There are already rumblings (WOL I think) about the personal flak he has been receiving.
Let's just stick to the facts. There is plenty of material to work with. |
Yes, I’m getting that distinct impression too. It explains the sycophants and cronies coming on here and trying to get a bite off someone or trying to lay down a few ‘pro- Jenkins’ threads. It’s all pretty transparent and unsophisticated, but I’m thinking that a little more hostility should be directed at Morgan, Dineen, JVZ and the others, rather than just concentrating on Jenkins. After all, he ihas only ever been Morgan’s ‘talking head’ hasn’t he? |  |
| "Yossarian- the very sight of the name made him shudder.There were so many esses in it. It just had to be subversive" (Catch 22) |
|  |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 18:19 - Dec 31 with 2501 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 16:52 - Dec 31 by ItchySphincter |
Has the BBC received a 'cease and desist'? Whatever was there has clearly been taken down?
Anyhow, I like the last line of the statement but part of me believes El Conko is trying to engineer his own exit anyway.
It put a smile on my face I suppose and I have a chorus of '....sacked in the morning, you're getting sacked in the moooooooorning' going around in my head.  |
I f*cked up the url. Corrected now. |  |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:13 - Dec 31 with 2405 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 16:52 - Dec 31 by ItchySphincter |
Has the BBC received a 'cease and desist'? Whatever was there has clearly been taken down?
Anyhow, I like the last line of the statement but part of me believes El Conko is trying to engineer his own exit anyway.
It put a smile on my face I suppose and I have a chorus of '....sacked in the morning, you're getting sacked in the moooooooorning' going around in my head. |
It is still there! |  | | |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:18 - Dec 31 with 2387 views | derijack |
Agree wholeheartedly regarding the abuse. There’s enough info out there that is damning without the need for abuse.
At the end of the day the journey we’ve been on wouldn’t have happened without the intervention they made. The money they put in was never an investment really, the likelihood at the time was that it would see no return.
However, by selling in the way they did completely ruined their reputations. All they had to do was give the trust the opportunity to purchase shares or even better gift the 4% between them and still walk away with millions. Combined with proper due dil they would have left with heads held high. There would have been some discontent in some quarters but nothing like this.
Let’s be honest in time we will always remember the good times over the bad as that’s human nature. We don’t reminisce over the fall in the 80s do we?
But as the great John Hammond in Jurassic Park once said ‘I don’t blame people for their mistakes, but I do ask that they pay for them’ 😉
My feelings are that these normal people have been put in a position with money that none of us can imagine and they messed up. They have to walk, but that is it and no more.
Once they do the club can begin to heal without the divides they provide. | |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:19 - Dec 31 with 2382 views | A_Fans_Dad |
My son say's that ITV wales has a big piece on the Trust Statement with an Interview as well.
It is getting out there. [Post edited 31 Dec 2017 20:09]
| | | |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:26 - Dec 31 with 2355 views | monmouth |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:18 - Dec 31 by derijack |
Agree wholeheartedly regarding the abuse. There’s enough info out there that is damning without the need for abuse.
At the end of the day the journey we’ve been on wouldn’t have happened without the intervention they made. The money they put in was never an investment really, the likelihood at the time was that it would see no return.
However, by selling in the way they did completely ruined their reputations. All they had to do was give the trust the opportunity to purchase shares or even better gift the 4% between them and still walk away with millions. Combined with proper due dil they would have left with heads held high. There would have been some discontent in some quarters but nothing like this.
Let’s be honest in time we will always remember the good times over the bad as that’s human nature. We don’t reminisce over the fall in the 80s do we?
But as the great John Hammond in Jurassic Park once said ‘I don’t blame people for their mistakes, but I do ask that they pay for them’ 😉
My feelings are that these normal people have been put in a position with money that none of us can imagine and they messed up. They have to walk, but that is it and no more.
Once they do the club can begin to heal without the divides they provide. |
If they never saw it as an investment can someone explain why Katzen pitched in, or why Dineen was gagging to be involved later on using the Trust to get a position? |  |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:27 - Dec 31 with 2353 views | vetchonian |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:18 - Dec 31 by derijack |
Agree wholeheartedly regarding the abuse. There’s enough info out there that is damning without the need for abuse.
At the end of the day the journey we’ve been on wouldn’t have happened without the intervention they made. The money they put in was never an investment really, the likelihood at the time was that it would see no return.
However, by selling in the way they did completely ruined their reputations. All they had to do was give the trust the opportunity to purchase shares or even better gift the 4% between them and still walk away with millions. Combined with proper due dil they would have left with heads held high. There would have been some discontent in some quarters but nothing like this.
Let’s be honest in time we will always remember the good times over the bad as that’s human nature. We don’t reminisce over the fall in the 80s do we?
But as the great John Hammond in Jurassic Park once said ‘I don’t blame people for their mistakes, but I do ask that they pay for them’ 😉
My feelings are that these normal people have been put in a position with money that none of us can imagine and they messed up. They have to walk, but that is it and no more.
Once they do the club can begin to heal without the divides they provide. |
So right
The biggest injustice is that the club has not benefitted from the sale or its future secured whilst certain individuals have have their fortunes made! | |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:29 - Dec 31 with 2343 views | derijack |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:26 - Dec 31 by monmouth |
If they never saw it as an investment can someone explain why Katzen pitched in, or why Dineen was gagging to be involved later on using the Trust to get a position? |
Ok, maybe they did? Just an opinion. Was one hell of a risk though! Surely the likelihood was never seeing the money again. Wasn’t the vetch almost shut due to H&S reasons around the time?
Either way that wasn’t the sentiment of the post. It was more be forthright and bang to rights but not personally abusive.
👠| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:42 - Dec 31 with 2306 views | monmouth |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:29 - Dec 31 by derijack |
Ok, maybe they did? Just an opinion. Was one hell of a risk though! Surely the likelihood was never seeing the money again. Wasn’t the vetch almost shut due to H&S reasons around the time?
Either way that wasn’t the sentiment of the post. It was more be forthright and bang to rights but not personally abusive.
👠|
I was just thinking aloud not having a go. Hence the ‘someone’. It is a real question, I have never understood Katzen’s involvement right from the start. He was always a speculator wasn’t he? It was a risk on the stadium and survival, but I think it was a calculated one. Which I have no problem with whatsoever. I do have a problem with all the pretend ‘fans for the fans’ window dressing and the realisation of the proceeds though.
For my money, they’ve hated and resented the Trust right from the start, except when they’re been able to use or abuse it. It’s all been about them and how to use the club to improve their financial position, one way or another, though they never thought in their wildest dreams it would get to this. Again not a problem up to a point, as long as the club is looked after and nurtured as part of the deal.
It’s clear they couldn’t give a shit about the club, and therefore reasonable to speculate that they never really did. | |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:49 - Dec 31 with 2269 views | Dr_Winston |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:42 - Dec 31 by monmouth |
I was just thinking aloud not having a go. Hence the ‘someone’. It is a real question, I have never understood Katzen’s involvement right from the start. He was always a speculator wasn’t he? It was a risk on the stadium and survival, but I think it was a calculated one. Which I have no problem with whatsoever. I do have a problem with all the pretend ‘fans for the fans’ window dressing and the realisation of the proceeds though.
For my money, they’ve hated and resented the Trust right from the start, except when they’re been able to use or abuse it. It’s all been about them and how to use the club to improve their financial position, one way or another, though they never thought in their wildest dreams it would get to this. Again not a problem up to a point, as long as the club is looked after and nurtured as part of the deal.
It’s clear they couldn’t give a shit about the club, and therefore reasonable to speculate that they never really did. |
Jenkins has never been a big fan of the Trust.
I can recall him getting quite grouchy about them during his "announce and gob off about transfers before they'd been completed" phase. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:54 - Dec 31 with 2244 views | Flashberryjack |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 09:15 - Dec 31 by Dr_Winston |
Finally, some balls. |
After the horse has bolted. |  |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:56 - Dec 31 with 2227 views | monmouth |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:49 - Dec 31 by Dr_Winston |
Jenkins has never been a big fan of the Trust.
I can recall him getting quite grouchy about them during his "announce and gob off about transfers before they'd been completed" phase. |
Plus the refusal to continue hypothecation of the Trust subs into the ST price (hence the club subsidising and supporting fan involvement). Quite ironic as he got a gong on the back of a fan owned model. Maybe the SCSA can get Liz to give him a call. | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:57 - Dec 31 with 2223 views | derijack |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:42 - Dec 31 by monmouth |
I was just thinking aloud not having a go. Hence the ‘someone’. It is a real question, I have never understood Katzen’s involvement right from the start. He was always a speculator wasn’t he? It was a risk on the stadium and survival, but I think it was a calculated one. Which I have no problem with whatsoever. I do have a problem with all the pretend ‘fans for the fans’ window dressing and the realisation of the proceeds though.
For my money, they’ve hated and resented the Trust right from the start, except when they’re been able to use or abuse it. It’s all been about them and how to use the club to improve their financial position, one way or another, though they never thought in their wildest dreams it would get to this. Again not a problem up to a point, as long as the club is looked after and nurtured as part of the deal.
It’s clear they couldn’t give a shit about the club, and therefore reasonable to speculate that they never really did. |
Likewise, was more of a question to myself.
I think they liked the trust as a ‘fan owned club’ PR tool but other than that I think it was a hinderance to them.
Either way, I can’t see the current setup lasting long into 2018.
God knows if that’s a good thing or not. Especially when the yanks hire the American Ron Atkinson as a director of football.
The best thing the trust can do is sell their share for 21 mill and wait for the inevitable to happen. Surely that’ll be enough for a championship/league one club with no stadium? [Post edited 31 Dec 2017 20:02]
| |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:57 - Dec 31 with 2222 views | Wingstandwood |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:26 - Dec 31 by monmouth |
If they never saw it as an investment can someone explain why Katzen pitched in, or why Dineen was gagging to be involved later on using the Trust to get a position? |
Katzen and Dineen? People sometimes buy a particular type of share that becomes what is called a 'ten-bagger'. A share that rockets in value.
Bear in mind the future potential of the yet to materialise (but was in well into planning/progression i.e. courtesy of Silver Shield) Liberty Stadium build. SCFC was a fantastic share purchase of significant future potential i.e. previously shown with other clubs e.g. Reading Madjeski Stadium. Attendances and revenue were going to substacially increase. And to make things even nicer the council payed for the stadium......What a deal hey!
So Katzen and Dineen were indeed astute share purchasers! And surprise, surprise rewards get even greater when the end product of becoming a director was closed-shop ‘in-house’ patronage, contracts, jobs-for-the-boys, perks, exclusive contacts, privileges, status etc , etc, etc.
So to some things up! Shares bought in SCFC was money put aside to profiteer and not some selfless undying act of philanthropy, loyalty and love for a local football club |  |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 20:00 - Dec 31 with 2208 views | swancity |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:54 - Dec 31 by Flashberryjack |
After the horse has bolted. |
Better late than never. You do sense that the Trust have done everything possible to remain on good terms with Jenkins and cronies but it's reached a point where they simply had to intervene. It's long over due and they're reluctance to address things properly has been embarrassing and unacceptable. Let's hope that it's a sign of a new fresh approach as it's desperately needed. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 20:01 - Dec 31 with 2196 views | Dr_Winston |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:56 - Dec 31 by monmouth |
Plus the refusal to continue hypothecation of the Trust subs into the ST price (hence the club subsidising and supporting fan involvement). Quite ironic as he got a gong on the back of a fan owned model. Maybe the SCSA can get Liz to give him a call. |
Forgot about that. Good example. | |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 20:03 - Dec 31 with 2186 views | Swanseajill |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:49 - Dec 31 by Dr_Winston |
Jenkins has never been a big fan of the Trust.
I can recall him getting quite grouchy about them during his "announce and gob off about transfers before they'd been completed" phase. |
I don't believe any director or club chairman have ever wanted the fans to become ....too big a "force"
That's my view since 1978 and being involved with The Supporters club. |  | | |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 20:09 - Dec 31 with 2152 views | monmouth |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:57 - Dec 31 by Wingstandwood |
Katzen and Dineen? People sometimes buy a particular type of share that becomes what is called a 'ten-bagger'. A share that rockets in value.
Bear in mind the future potential of the yet to materialise (but was in well into planning/progression i.e. courtesy of Silver Shield) Liberty Stadium build. SCFC was a fantastic share purchase of significant future potential i.e. previously shown with other clubs e.g. Reading Madjeski Stadium. Attendances and revenue were going to substacially increase. And to make things even nicer the council payed for the stadium......What a deal hey!
So Katzen and Dineen were indeed astute share purchasers! And surprise, surprise rewards get even greater when the end product of becoming a director was closed-shop ‘in-house’ patronage, contracts, jobs-for-the-boys, perks, exclusive contacts, privileges, status etc , etc, etc.
So to some things up! Shares bought in SCFC was money put aside to profiteer and not some selfless undying act of philanthropy, loyalty and love for a local football club |
That’s how I’m viewing it these days too. There was a pretty cast iron return there when the stadium deal could be confidently predicted unless we fell through the trapdoor, and even then I’m sure there’d have been loss mitigation opportunities.
I’ve done a fair bit of speculating in my life but it’s the pretence and the opportunism of ‘not just another football club’ and ‘by the fans for the fans’ tat sticks in my craw. Just became another ploy to be used in support of their own ends, even if one or two started out actually being fans, and maybe even believing it. | |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 20:16 - Dec 31 with 2116 views | derijack |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 20:09 - Dec 31 by monmouth |
That’s how I’m viewing it these days too. There was a pretty cast iron return there when the stadium deal could be confidently predicted unless we fell through the trapdoor, and even then I’m sure there’d have been loss mitigation opportunities.
I’ve done a fair bit of speculating in my life but it’s the pretence and the opportunism of ‘not just another football club’ and ‘by the fans for the fans’ tat sticks in my craw. Just became another ploy to be used in support of their own ends, even if one or two started out actually being fans, and maybe even believing it. |
Good points. However, I still think there was one hell of a risk.
You can’t guarantee results on the pitch even when you throw money at it. Which they didn’t.
Look at Doncaster. They had a stadium around the same time as us and that was also publicly owned. They are still League One.
Saying all that, maybe they saw a 100% return as opportunity enough? Which was probably almost guaranteed with a stadium like the liberty on the cards.
What they got was a lot more than that. Gifting the trust shares would have been a perfect lasting legacy. It’s a shame [Post edited 31 Dec 2017 20:18]
| |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 21:04 - Dec 31 with 1980 views | Quincy999 |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:49 - Dec 31 by Dr_Winston |
Jenkins has never been a big fan of the Trust.
I can recall him getting quite grouchy about them during his "announce and gob off about transfers before they'd been completed" phase. |
Yes, i remember many years back Jenkins saying along the lines of "it is good that we are partly owned by the fans no matter how difficult it can be dealing with the trust". This was pre premier league i believe and it shocked me at the time. | | | |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 21:52 - Dec 31 with 1881 views | majorraglan |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 19:56 - Dec 31 by monmouth |
Plus the refusal to continue hypothecation of the Trust subs into the ST price (hence the club subsidising and supporting fan involvement). Quite ironic as he got a gong on the back of a fan owned model. Maybe the SCSA can get Liz to give him a call. |
I think this is a very interesting point. I am sure someone will have the information to hand, but I seem to recall it was £10 per season ticket, which based on sales of 16,000 season tickets per annum would have generated an income of £160,000 per season. That would have generated significant funds for the Supporters Trust and put them in a strong financial position, which on reflection (with a degree of cynicism) may have been the reason it was binned.
The $64m question is would the man on the Clapham Omnibus believe the Trust has been disadvantaged? If I were an official on the Trust Board, I would be looking for a no win no fee high flying City Law firm with a potential to litigate. I am no legal eagle, but is it possible that the Trust could win, secure compensation from the previous owners/ current owners as well as having them pay the Trusts Legal bills and their own? That could prove to be very expensive for someone! | | | |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 22:59 - Dec 31 with 1794 views | chad |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 21:52 - Dec 31 by majorraglan |
I think this is a very interesting point. I am sure someone will have the information to hand, but I seem to recall it was £10 per season ticket, which based on sales of 16,000 season tickets per annum would have generated an income of £160,000 per season. That would have generated significant funds for the Supporters Trust and put them in a strong financial position, which on reflection (with a degree of cynicism) may have been the reason it was binned.
The $64m question is would the man on the Clapham Omnibus believe the Trust has been disadvantaged? If I were an official on the Trust Board, I would be looking for a no win no fee high flying City Law firm with a potential to litigate. I am no legal eagle, but is it possible that the Trust could win, secure compensation from the previous owners/ current owners as well as having them pay the Trusts Legal bills and their own? That could prove to be very expensive for someone! |
I am no legal eagle, but is it possible that the Trust could win
Fortunately Counsel we engaged was a legal eagle
and not only thought it possible we could win but thought we had a strong case (about the best recommendation that Counsel would ever stake their considerable reputation upon)
And of course despite intimation to the contrary, Counsel never ever ever ever endorsed the shocking deal that was recommended and pushed by the Trust |  | | |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 23:22 - Dec 31 with 1752 views | E20Jack |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 22:59 - Dec 31 by chad |
I am no legal eagle, but is it possible that the Trust could win
Fortunately Counsel we engaged was a legal eagle
and not only thought it possible we could win but thought we had a strong case (about the best recommendation that Counsel would ever stake their considerable reputation upon)
And of course despite intimation to the contrary, Counsel never ever ever ever endorsed the shocking deal that was recommended and pushed by the Trust |
X100000000000000000000 |  |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 00:24 - Jan 1 with 1666 views | Witneyjack |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 14:37 - Dec 31 by exiledclaseboy |
The following email has just been sent to Trust members following up the statement with a bit more detail.
What a result yesterday and our congratulations to Carlos Carvalhal and all the coaching and playing staff. Credit also to the travelling Jackarmy at Watford for great vocal support throughout the game. This is clearly an important result as we move into a tough looking January schedule and hopefully it will be the start of an upturn in our playing fortunes.
Following such a great day yesterday it was particularly disappointing to have to return our attention to addressing some serious inaccuracies in an interview the Club Chairman, Huw Jenkins gave to the media on Friday. In particular his version of events surrounding the sale of shares in the Club to the American Consortium last year. You can read our full response to the interview on the Trust website.
We thought it would be helpful to our members if we picked out a few key points in the interview and outlined our response.
Huw Jenkins in interview: 'a lot of discussions went on legally behind the scenes up to about February 2016 to when a terms sheet and formal structure of a possible deal was put together.'
Trust response: The Memorandum of Agreement, which outline the formal structure of the deal and subsequently seen by the Trust, is actually dated 5 December 2015. The Trust received a draft copy of a Share Purchase Agreement on 28 March 2016, however both documents clearly shows the Trust as having no part in the deal.
Huw Jenkins in interview: (following reference to the Aston Villa game on 19 March 2016) 'There was then a meeting held on the Saturday morning of the game, with the Trust — who had four members and legal representation present — and two of our shareholders, to try and convince the Trust to sell 11% (of their shareholding in the deal).'
Trust response: There was no meeting involving the Trust ahead of the game on 19 March. Three members of the Trust Board had requested a meeting with Huw Jenkins earlier that week having become aware of the ongoing discussions with the Americans. No legal representation was present and no offer to buy shares was made.
The first time a legal representative of the Trust was at any such meeting was on the morning of the Chelsea game (9 April 2016) to meet with Jason Levien, representing the American consortium. The discussion centred on the relationship the new owners would have with the Trust. Again there was no offer to buy any Trust shares. A subsequent meeting with two other shareholders that day centred as much on an alternative investment interest as much as anything.
Huw Jenkins in interview “The way it’s been put out in many statements and parts of media coverage that they were unaware of the deal is just not true'.
Trust response: We have repeatedly acknowledged that we became aware of the deal in March 2016. It is clear however that detailed discussions around the deal were ongoing for many months before that leading up to the Memorandum of Agreement being prepared as early as 5 December 2015. The Trust, and allegedly some of the other shareholders, were unaware of the discussions going on prior to March 2016. That is simply a fact.
Huw Jenkins in interview (commenting on the period March-July 2016) “During that period, anything could have changed, any permutations of selling shares could have changed to suit anybody including the Supporters’ Trust."
Trust response: At no point during the four month period prior to the completion of the sale was any offer made to purchase Trust shares or to include the Trust in the ongoing discussions with the Americans about the deal. The reference in the interview to ‘it was hard work with all shareholders just to get a deal together’ is inaccurate in that all shareholders were not involved in such discussions. It is clear on our part that Huw Jenkins’ focus during this period was on those shareholders who had been identified as early as December 2015 as being part of the deal, not the Supporters’ Trust.
We await any response and reaction to our statement and will keep members advised. We also expect to be able to let you have a full update later this week on the proposed sale of some of the Trust shares.
In the meantime however an opportunity to wish you all a very happy and healthy 2018.
Best wishes
The Swans Trust Team |
I haven't received an e-mail from the Trust since November. Have I been blacklisted? |  | | |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 00:42 - Jan 1 with 1642 views | chad |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 00:24 - Jan 1 by Witneyjack |
I haven't received an e-mail from the Trust since November. Have I been blacklisted? |
freeserve? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.