| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 140897 views | Neath_Jack |
Regarding the options open to us.
It's going to cause some massive debate on here i reckon  |  |
| |  |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:14 - Jul 2 with 2080 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:03 - Jul 2 by londonlisa2001 |
That was my point Ux.
If the membership vote to accept the deal, please could I urge that the details of the tag and drag rights are really closely looked at and that the assumption is made that ANY loophole will be exploited.
This very issue (tag rights in a subsidiary being circumvented by sale of a parent company in Delaware) came up in the Hollinger International Case against Conrad Black and the minority shareholders lost that part of the case (I looked it up). |
I got that. I honestly didn't think it needed clarifying, but I shall raise this with Dai. I agree it'd be pointless if it wasn't enforceable. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:15 - Jul 2 with 2072 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:10 - Jul 2 by morningstar |
Best to ignore that one is it Ux? Because i KNOW it to be true.  |
Is this a PS FACT?! | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:18 - Jul 2 with 2052 views | morningstar |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:15 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
Is this a PS FACT?! |
No, it's a trust board fact. Or at least the view of the hierarchy within the trust board. |  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:22 - Jul 2 with 2026 views | londonlisa2001 |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 08:42 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
Thanks Lisa.
There's a lot I agree with but some I don't. In particular the figures. You talk about 6m vs 23m, however I don't think that's the whole picture... If we're just looking at selling it's 6m + 16% guaranteed to be sold at whatever price the Americans exit at vs 23m. You're right, it's a gamble that the club doesn't go into free fall and is suddenly worth £1 again, but I just don't think those are the only two scenarios. There's a whole lot in the middle too.
Accepting the offer is absolutely a bet on the Americans being successful, or at least not a complete disaster. However isn't that consistent with the Trust’s aims? We want as successful a football club as possible. Run properly of course. I'd much rather we retained that input to help make that happen. In a way, I see legal action as self fulfilling in that regard... It increases the possibility of that meltdown.
I'm really not dismissing the merits of legal action as a course of action BTW. Between you, me and those who read this, I'd be coming to the same conclusion without one of the elements of the deal in particular. Guess I've come to a different conclusion based on how I think the future could go. |
Of course we want as successful a club as possible.
It's not only the success though, it's the enforceability of the tag provisions and drag provisions.
Your argument is, I imagine, the tag provisions mean that the Trust is not really giving up the £17m it forgoes now, it is simply delaying the receipt as it is more than likely that the club will be sold for more than it was purchased for so the Trust will get their money then, and in the meantime retain influence.
The issue with that is it relies on the club remaining in the premier league, the tag rights being absolutely water tight, the tag rights applying in the event of a change of ownership in the US parent company (although no one knows who the owners are at the moment), the TV deal being higher when the club is sold than it is now.
I hope that the above is all true. But the issue with any deal that the Trust accepts, is its primary objective is, almost by definition, an attempt to plan for the worst and provide a safety net. If all goes well and we stay in the premier league then it's all a bit irrelevant. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:22 - Jul 2 with 2026 views | Pokerface |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:18 - Jul 2 by morningstar |
No, it's a trust board fact. Or at least the view of the hierarchy within the trust board. |
You know for a fact that Trust board want Huw to remain in place? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:26 - Jul 2 with 2004 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:22 - Jul 2 by Pokerface |
You know for a fact that Trust board want Huw to remain in place? |
He doesn't, no.
The closest anyone has come in discussions that I've been involved in is concern over who the Americans might replace him with if he was to be forced out. If you desperately wanted to, you could maybe translate that into a "better the devil you know" viewpoint but that is not representative of the Trust Board as a whole and nor (certainly as far as I'm aware) is it the official Trust view. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:27 - Jul 2 with 1999 views | UplandsJack |
The last two comments added by Lisa alone surely confirms if there was ever a need, that she should be assisting with this process. I'm sorry and with respect have to say she seems to know so much more about this process than all of the board combined. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:28 - Jul 2 with 1999 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:59 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
You raise an interesting point. If this deal is rejected, what then. Would any sort of deal ever be enough? Is the lure of legal action just too attractive? I don't know, I'm asking. There were times last season I felt that Rome burning might be the way to go. Not so much now if I'm honest. |
Lure of legal action isn't too much for me Ux.
If the deal was more towards the middle, i.e, the £10.5m paid now, security around tag rights guaranteed, careful wording on drag rights, I'd probably go for that I think as the Trust would then have £11m in the bank, plus 10.5% to be sold. I'm never a fan of legal action for the sake of it. Bet others aren't either... | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:28 - Jul 2 with 1996 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:57 - Jul 2 by Nookiejack |
A question for Uxbridge.
If the Bookies have has down as 9/4 to be relegated this season = 30%................... then that means there is a 70% chance of us staying up.
https://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/relegation
What therefore are the cumulative probability of us being relegated within 5 seasons?
Is it something like 1 - (70% * 70% * 70% * 70% * 70%) = 83%?
If it is something like that Trust will be running quite a risk in accepting the Yank's offer? |
Your premise is flawed. Bookies odds are not reality. If they were, we'd be down by now.
I'd agree though that odds are we'll get relegated at some point in the future, quite possibly within 5 years, possibly much less. Whether it's before a further sale is another question entirely. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:28 - Jul 2 with 1996 views | morningstar |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:22 - Jul 2 by Pokerface |
You know for a fact that Trust board want Huw to remain in place? |
I can't speak for the whole board, but basically, yes i do. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:29 - Jul 2 with 1977 views | sideline |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:31 - Jul 2 by Dewi1jack |
With the Trust statement just seeming to show the pros of the deal and cons of legal action, rather than a balanced pros and cons of each option, I fear the Trust don't want their dirty washing airing in public.
No matter what effect it has on the Trust and fans of the club.
I really do hope I'm wrong |
exactly well said,to many grubby fingers dont want to be exposed. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:33 - Jul 2 with 1960 views | Uxbridge |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:22 - Jul 2 by londonlisa2001 |
Of course we want as successful a club as possible.
It's not only the success though, it's the enforceability of the tag provisions and drag provisions.
Your argument is, I imagine, the tag provisions mean that the Trust is not really giving up the £17m it forgoes now, it is simply delaying the receipt as it is more than likely that the club will be sold for more than it was purchased for so the Trust will get their money then, and in the meantime retain influence.
The issue with that is it relies on the club remaining in the premier league, the tag rights being absolutely water tight, the tag rights applying in the event of a change of ownership in the US parent company (although no one knows who the owners are at the moment), the TV deal being higher when the club is sold than it is now.
I hope that the above is all true. But the issue with any deal that the Trust accepts, is its primary objective is, almost by definition, an attempt to plan for the worst and provide a safety net. If all goes well and we stay in the premier league then it's all a bit irrelevant. |
I really do feel you're making too much of the potential unenforceability of a tag along clause. It's something that the legal documents will need to ensure is watertight, but that's just a given. That goes for anything. If that can't be done, I'll actually be agreeing that the deal isn't enough.
You're right to a point... I do think the tag along means the rump 10-16% has value, and that needs to be factored in to the discussions. Neither of us knows how that'd turn out, however it seems to be being dismissed or assuming its all going to go to pot and they'll be worth zero. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:34 - Jul 2 with 1947 views | max936 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:41 - Jul 2 by morningstar |
Because no matter what he's done. The trust board still believe he is the best person to have as chairman of our club. |
Unbelievable, it shouldn't be their decision to back him then, Pearlman could do the job and bring in a proper football administrator/director in, instead. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:34 - Jul 2 with 1947 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:14 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
I got that. I honestly didn't think it needed clarifying, but I shall raise this with Dai. I agree it'd be pointless if it wasn't enforceable. |
I honestly can't see how you can recommend a deal is accepted without knowing the answer to the question. I don't mean you personally by the way.
Because otherwise what have you got? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:34 - Jul 2 with 1947 views | UplandsJack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:31 - Jul 2 by Dewi1jack |
With the Trust statement just seeming to show the pros of the deal and cons of legal action, rather than a balanced pros and cons of each option, I fear the Trust don't want their dirty washing airing in public.
No matter what effect it has on the Trust and fans of the club.
I really do hope I'm wrong |
Dewi I think there may be more truth in your statement than we as mere fans will ever find out.
Let's be honest here, the Trusts actions/ decision making over the last 2 years or so hasn't really been top notch now has it.... #Cooze #White | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:38 - Jul 2 with 1928 views | harryhpalmer |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:14 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
I got that. I honestly didn't think it needed clarifying, but I shall raise this with Dai. I agree it'd be pointless if it wasn't enforceable. |
Ux there was other points that NeathJack mentioned about the drag clause that could do with clarification, which come as a result of an article I posted detailing drag rights.
1. Is there a minimum price set on the drag rights?
That would go some to protecting us.
2. Is there anything to stop the Americans setting up another Delaware secret vehicle and selling the club on for a pittance, thus screwing us? Dai or the QC needs to answer this. | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:42 - Jul 2 with 1912 views | londonlisa2001 |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:33 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
I really do feel you're making too much of the potential unenforceability of a tag along clause. It's something that the legal documents will need to ensure is watertight, but that's just a given. That goes for anything. If that can't be done, I'll actually be agreeing that the deal isn't enough.
You're right to a point... I do think the tag along means the rump 10-16% has value, and that needs to be factored in to the discussions. Neither of us knows how that'd turn out, however it seems to be being dismissed or assuming its all going to go to pot and they'll be worth zero. |
Ux. You can't have people voting on a deal without knowing if it can be achieved.
But that aside, it's not a case of assuming it's going to go to pot, or hoping it will, or being optimistic or pessimistic. It's the duty of the Trust to PLAN as if it will all go to pot. We wouldn't need a Trust otherwise. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:49 - Jul 2 with 1879 views | morningstar |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:33 - Jul 2 by MattG |
Go on then. |
PM sent Matt | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:50 - Jul 2 with 1869 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:28 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
Your premise is flawed. Bookies odds are not reality. If they were, we'd be down by now.
I'd agree though that odds are we'll get relegated at some point in the future, quite possibly within 5 years, possibly much less. Whether it's before a further sale is another question entirely. |
I don't quite understand that post.
So you think there is a high chance of relegation in next 5 years but think the Yanks will sell before we are relegated - so the £21m will be safe? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:59 - Jul 2 with 1843 views | Pokerface |
Any chance of some openness and honesty from the Trust.
All options available. Pros and cons.
All viewpoints of Trust board. Some must be questionning the one option recommended.
What QC thinks of latest offer ?
Why Trust are pushing the latest offer even though not seen by QC.
How qualified are the Trust to make this decision ?
What legal advice has been sought on latest offer before recommending members accept it ? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:00 - Jul 2 with 1842 views | monmouth |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:49 - Jul 2 by morningstar |
PM sent Matt |
Well, unless I've missed some shattering announcement, given that the Trust has never come out and called for his removal, despite him shitting all over them for all the world to see, plus loads of self justifying utter turd from him in the press, and some criticism of him in various trust communiques, I think it's self evident the Trust position is that they are happy for him to remain. I can't really see what other conclusion can be drawn from actions to date.
They might not like him, they might even detest him, but they don't actively want him out, or they would say so, publicly, clearly and unambiguously. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:00 - Jul 2 with 1836 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:26 - Jul 2 by MattG |
He doesn't, no.
The closest anyone has come in discussions that I've been involved in is concern over who the Americans might replace him with if he was to be forced out. If you desperately wanted to, you could maybe translate that into a "better the devil you know" viewpoint but that is not representative of the Trust Board as a whole and nor (certainly as far as I'm aware) is it the official Trust view. |
That's a great post.
I've seen quite a few tweets over the last 18 months saying the same kind of thing.
Seriously though it's like saying if Huw Jenkins gets run over by a bus tomorrow morning Swansea City folds.
It's a pathetic point in my opinion. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 23:06]
|  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:06 - Jul 2 with 1825 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:50 - Jul 2 by Nookiejack |
I don't quite understand that post.
So you think there is a high chance of relegation in next 5 years but think the Yanks will sell before we are relegated - so the £21m will be safe? |
For someone who works in the top odds trading firm in Europe I can say quite categorically that bookmakers odds most certainly do represent reality. We have experts in the field of every decisions made. Some people tend to think if something doesn't happen and it is priced at 1/2 - then the bookies got it wrong, that premise couldn't be further from the truth. If we gave odds of 5/6 on "heads" to represent 50% chance (plus our overround) of that happening and it landed in tails ... we would still be correct.
To say that there is a high chance of us getting relegated and then in the same breath say they think we should take the deal almost dependant on the opposite shows what level of understanding these volunteers have of business, statistics and relevant decision making. It is frightening they are in a position to make recommendations.
I appreciate the Trusts work but they really do need to understand their place and limitations. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
