| keefe/penny verdict on 15:46 - May 1 with 3495 views | Darran |
| keefe/penny verdict on 15:32 - May 1 by TheResurrection |
Together with Co Directors brought Swansea City from the bottom division to the top division and kept us there for 7 seasons and counting.
That's first class in my eyes.
Your posts are barking mad. |
Of course it was first class but that was then and this is now. |  |
|  |
| keefe/penny verdict on 15:52 - May 1 with 3472 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| keefe/penny verdict on 15:23 - May 1 by TheResurrection |
Yes but a clear case as any of winning a battle and losing a war.
Ask the two in question if they feel they've won. |
Good grief! |  |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 16:45 - May 1 with 3401 views | exhmrc1 |
The evidence shows 5% win constructive unfair dismissal claims so I guess they are delighted. Constructive dismissal claims can only be held by an employment tribunal whereas an unfair dismissal claim can be held there or the court. Constructive claims are for a maximum of 1 years wages whereas an unfair dismissal is open ended. |  | | |
| keefe/penny verdict on 17:01 - May 1 with 3378 views | swanforthemoney |
| keefe/penny verdict on 12:30 - May 1 by QJumpingJack |
Maybe an independent body appointed by the Premier League can fully investigate how our club is being run.
The alarm bells are ringing. |
They waved through the Mendes - wolves connections. They don’t really want to interfere |  |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 17:20 - May 1 with 3356 views | waynekerr55 |
| keefe/penny verdict on 11:00 - May 1 by Uxbridge |
I'm not sure why you think the cash flow situation has changed one iota. |
Badly worded - our previous owners didn't have sufficient backing to cover losses if it went tits up. Did/do the new owners? That's up for debate.
I will add I find it ludicrous that they all awarded themselves 100% pay rises despite nearly running the club into the ground with vanity purchases we couldn't afford. |  |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 17:25 - May 1 with 3341 views | Loyal |
| keefe/penny verdict on 17:20 - May 1 by waynekerr55 |
Badly worded - our previous owners didn't have sufficient backing to cover losses if it went tits up. Did/do the new owners? That's up for debate.
I will add I find it ludicrous that they all awarded themselves 100% pay rises despite nearly running the club into the ground with vanity purchases we couldn't afford. |
Fcking 2 year debate so far. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 19:09 - May 1 with 3243 views | swancity |
| keefe/penny verdict on 09:05 - May 1 by TheResurrection |
They've just been exonerated of anything illegal in a court of law. |
I need relation to the unfair dismissal case yes. By the skin of their teeth. But I was referring to other stuff. The Club sale being one. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 21:51 - May 1 with 3117 views | Bloodyhills |
Dineen and Jenkins are a couple of lying shysters it would seem. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| keefe/penny verdict on 22:01 - May 1 with 3097 views | Loyal |
| keefe/penny verdict on 21:51 - May 1 by Bloodyhills |
Dineen and Jenkins are a couple of lying shysters it would seem. |
On the balance of probability ...
Or not. | |
| 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 |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 01:41 - May 2 with 2998 views | Slimer |
| keefe/penny verdict on 09:26 - May 1 by TheResurrection |
Well they always are you thick kunt. There's always a reason why Company's need to submit reports of meetings. They have to, it's compulsory.
You'd be surprised what goes on.
The only statement that matters in all this is the one from the Club after the hearing which stands up for itself I noticed the other 2 declined to comment.
Yet the Planet Swans mafia are doing that for them, in bucket loads.
Some of you will only be truly happy when the Club implodes and we're left with nothing. Then the last 15 years can go down in history as the Glory Years part 2 and most of you will fack off back to garden centres on Saturday afternoon.
The Internets a piece of shit mostly. |
Ay, and you're the biggest drippling kent on it. |  | | |
| keefe/penny verdict on 09:36 - May 2 with 2857 views | Vetchfielder |
If , like the employment tribunal judge, anybody is of the view that it was series of administrative errors that resulted in these minutes being filed at Companies , let's look at what was involved :-
1. Somebody writes a set of minutes of a meeting that didn't take place. Why would anybody do that?
2. Somebody , possibly the same person, then gives those false minutes to Jenkins to sign - why would anybody do that?
3. Jenkins then signs a key corporate document , apparently without taking much notice what he was signing because of all the other sale issues that were going on. These are board meeting minutes mind, not a purchase order for players socks or printer paper.
4. Somebody then decides to file these false minutes with companies house.
That's a hell of a sequence of administrative errors and p1ss poor internal controls.
I do wonder though that if our unfair prejudice case ends up in court whether the judge in that case will also consider these to have been administrative errors. |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 09:52 - May 2 with 2829 views | Darran |
| keefe/penny verdict on 09:36 - May 2 by Vetchfielder |
If , like the employment tribunal judge, anybody is of the view that it was series of administrative errors that resulted in these minutes being filed at Companies , let's look at what was involved :-
1. Somebody writes a set of minutes of a meeting that didn't take place. Why would anybody do that?
2. Somebody , possibly the same person, then gives those false minutes to Jenkins to sign - why would anybody do that?
3. Jenkins then signs a key corporate document , apparently without taking much notice what he was signing because of all the other sale issues that were going on. These are board meeting minutes mind, not a purchase order for players socks or printer paper.
4. Somebody then decides to file these false minutes with companies house.
That's a hell of a sequence of administrative errors and p1ss poor internal controls.
I do wonder though that if our unfair prejudice case ends up in court whether the judge in that case will also consider these to have been administrative errors. |
From what I’m told there were people written into the minutes as being at the imaginary board that didn’t know they’d been mentioned in them too. | |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 09:56 - May 2 with 2821 views | BLAZE |
| keefe/penny verdict on 09:52 - May 2 by Darran |
From what I’m told there were people written into the minutes as being at the imaginary board that didn’t know they’d been mentioned in them too. |
I honestly can't see how a person can remain in position after that. What else has been done that nobody knows about!? |  | | |
| keefe/penny verdict on 10:01 - May 2 with 2808 views | theloneranger |
| keefe/penny verdict on 09:52 - May 2 by Darran |
From what I’m told there were people written into the minutes as being at the imaginary board that didn’t know they’d been mentioned in them too. |
Were those imaginary people there to make it a legitimate board meeting, a board meeting that didn't happen?? |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 10:06 - May 2 with 2796 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| keefe/penny verdict on 10:01 - May 2 by theloneranger |
Were those imaginary people there to make it a legitimate board meeting, a board meeting that didn't happen?? |
You have to have a quorum at board meetings mun in order to abide by the rules. |  |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 10:08 - May 2 with 2794 views | Darran |
| keefe/penny verdict on 10:01 - May 2 by theloneranger |
Were those imaginary people there to make it a legitimate board meeting, a board meeting that didn't happen?? |
Yes. | |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 10:37 - May 2 with 2756 views | TheResurrection |
| keefe/penny verdict on 09:36 - May 2 by Vetchfielder |
If , like the employment tribunal judge, anybody is of the view that it was series of administrative errors that resulted in these minutes being filed at Companies , let's look at what was involved :-
1. Somebody writes a set of minutes of a meeting that didn't take place. Why would anybody do that?
2. Somebody , possibly the same person, then gives those false minutes to Jenkins to sign - why would anybody do that?
3. Jenkins then signs a key corporate document , apparently without taking much notice what he was signing because of all the other sale issues that were going on. These are board meeting minutes mind, not a purchase order for players socks or printer paper.
4. Somebody then decides to file these false minutes with companies house.
That's a hell of a sequence of administrative errors and p1ss poor internal controls.
I do wonder though that if our unfair prejudice case ends up in court whether the judge in that case will also consider these to have been administrative errors. |
Not really because the meeting did happen in July where. Jenkins told them they had to resign. I'd imagine the minutes/meeting resulted from that |  |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 10:41 - May 2 with 2741 views | Uxbridge |
| keefe/penny verdict on 09:52 - May 2 by Darran |
From what I’m told there were people written into the minutes as being at the imaginary board that didn’t know they’d been mentioned in them too. |
By you being told, I assume you mean the Trust making several public statements to that effect?  |  |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 10:44 - May 2 with 2733 views | TheResurrection |
| keefe/penny verdict on 10:41 - May 2 by Uxbridge |
By you being told, I assume you mean the Trust making several public statements to that effect? |
You'd think he'd be very careful what he writes on the internet just to make him look like some kind of ITK.
True scum | |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 10:49 - May 2 with 2720 views | TheResurrection |
Back to the case...
This taken from the Case Documents
""Having seen and heard the evidence of Mr Jenkins we view it as improbable in the extreme that he was a party in a deliberate deception as alleged, and that the more likely explanation is simple error.”""
Now I understand everyone wanted to hear the exact opposite but that's from the Tribunal having been party to all the documentary evidence, claims and counter claims.
And that was their verdict.
The ones posting on here won't accept that because they simply wanted it to be the other way around.
That's the long and short of it | |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 10:52 - May 2 with 2712 views | Darran |
| keefe/penny verdict on 10:41 - May 2 by Uxbridge |
By you being told, I assume you mean the Trust making several public statements to that effect? |
No somebody else told me months ago. | |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 10:54 - May 2 with 2706 views | Darran |
| keefe/penny verdict on 10:44 - May 2 by TheResurrection |
You'd think he'd be very careful what he writes on the internet just to make him look like some kind of ITK.
True scum |
Why do I need to be careful? | |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 11:07 - May 2 with 2683 views | Uxbridge |
| keefe/penny verdict on 10:52 - May 2 by Darran |
No somebody else told me months ago. |
They probably read the Trust statements too. | |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 11:18 - May 2 with 2663 views | Darran |
| keefe/penny verdict on 11:07 - May 2 by Uxbridge |
They probably read the Trust statements too. |
Yes that’ll be it Andrew and whilst you’re here I doubt I’m the only one thinking here you are on Planet Swans trying to be clever when you could be commenting on the verdict as part of the Trust Board instead. | |
| |
| keefe/penny verdict on 11:20 - May 2 with 2655 views | Shaky |
| keefe/penny verdict on 09:36 - May 2 by Vetchfielder |
If , like the employment tribunal judge, anybody is of the view that it was series of administrative errors that resulted in these minutes being filed at Companies , let's look at what was involved :-
1. Somebody writes a set of minutes of a meeting that didn't take place. Why would anybody do that?
2. Somebody , possibly the same person, then gives those false minutes to Jenkins to sign - why would anybody do that?
3. Jenkins then signs a key corporate document , apparently without taking much notice what he was signing because of all the other sale issues that were going on. These are board meeting minutes mind, not a purchase order for players socks or printer paper.
4. Somebody then decides to file these false minutes with companies house.
That's a hell of a sequence of administrative errors and p1ss poor internal controls.
I do wonder though that if our unfair prejudice case ends up in court whether the judge in that case will also consider these to have been administrative errors. |
Writing up minutes of meetings that never took place happens all the time in smaller companies with maybe one or two shareholders to approve accounts and minor things like that.
Making up minutes of board meetings in companies with £100+ million turnover that sack directors is a different matter altogether.
However, i think there may be a failure of the reporting to accurately convey the nature of events.
There may or may not have been a board meeting on 21st july when these people were sacked, but there was in effect a shareholders' meeting when the new Articles of Association were adopted in holding company that paved the way for the Kaplan takeover.
And all the directors serve at the pleasure of the shareholders, who had every right to remove any directors they fancied.
However, Kaplan equally had full control of any shareholders meeting once the deal went ahead. He could just as easily have convened a shareholders' meeting immediately after the closing of the deal, and sacked these two directors who were not even on the board of the holding company.
Instead Kaplan in effect got his lapdog Jenkins to do the dirty work for him, ensuring he would come out of the situation smelling of roses. Meanwhile Jenkins took the shit because he wanted the money (guarantee the future of the club and take it to the next level, Shirley?)
Tells you all you need to know about that relationship. [Post edited 2 May 2018 11:26]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
