| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against 17:29 - Jul 1 with 6744 views | E20Jack |
Before the poll was compromised by multis.
Certainly a clear direction here.
Let's hope the Trust members follow suit in what seems to be a pretty closed book of rhetoric on their part to sway decision one way rather than the other. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 9:16]
|  |
| |  |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 17:30 - Jul 1 with 4000 views | E20Jack |
Let's see where we stand with this then. | |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 17:36 - Jul 1 with 3963 views | Vetchfielder |
The more I think about it and the more I read on here, the easier it gets to make a choice - litigation for me |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 19:31 - Jul 1 with 3786 views | Smellyplumz |
Twitchy bum time for the trust. |  |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 19:52 - Jul 1 with 3757 views | Oldjack |
Grow a pair and fight the robbing bastards all the way ,
What's amazed me was the reluctance of the share holders to give /sell shares to the trust to reach that o powerful 25% . we all know why now .,Devious sly underhand dealings to line their pockets and the Yanks must have known this yet still employed him ,it stinks to the core
Sorry if i was Phil i wouldn't give treacherous Huw & co the time of day |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 20:40 - Jul 1 with 3678 views | morningstar |
Whatever my views, i do not think this poll is a very good idea to be honest. It's not a General election ffs. It's far more important than that. |  |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 21:57 - Jul 1 with 3602 views | Glyn1 |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 17:36 - Jul 1 by Vetchfielder |
The more I think about it and the more I read on here, the easier it gets to make a choice - litigation for me |
And what would we be litigating for and what would we get out of it with the best result in court? (Honest question because I don't yet have an opinion on this one.) [Post edited 1 Jul 2017 21:59]
|  |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 22:49 - Jul 1 with 3542 views | fbreath |
The initial £6million offer is not sufficient compensation for the way the supporters have been treated (the trust is the supporters as well as those elected to represent the supporters).
I believe there is more to be gotten. This is serious business. What would the Americans do if the shoe was on the other foot. |  |
| We are the first Welsh club to reach the Premier League Simples |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 23:20 - Jul 1 with 3490 views | everytimeref |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 21:57 - Jul 1 by Glyn1 |
And what would we be litigating for and what would we get out of it with the best result in court? (Honest question because I don't yet have an opinion on this one.) [Post edited 1 Jul 2017 21:59]
|
If the Trust won (and there are no guarantees in any litigation ) the only thing the Court could order would be to force the new owners to buy all the Trust's shares at the same price they paid the old directors. There would be no possibility of over turning the sale or forcing Jenkins or anyone else out. The Trust would have no shares left, no seats on the Board and no influence on any decisions.
In addition, if the Trust lose the case they would have to pay their own legal costs plus the other parties' legal costs. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 23:21 - Jul 1 with 3487 views | E20Jack |
Then feel free to spoil your ballot Morningstar.
The poll stays and shows a very encouraging swing towards litigation, which of course is the no brainer option of those options presented. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 8:38]
| |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 23:42 - Jul 1 with 3450 views | Glyn1 |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 23:20 - Jul 1 by everytimeref |
If the Trust won (and there are no guarantees in any litigation ) the only thing the Court could order would be to force the new owners to buy all the Trust's shares at the same price they paid the old directors. There would be no possibility of over turning the sale or forcing Jenkins or anyone else out. The Trust would have no shares left, no seats on the Board and no influence on any decisions.
In addition, if the Trust lose the case they would have to pay their own legal costs plus the other parties' legal costs. |
Thanks. | |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 23:51 - Jul 1 with 3440 views | E20Jack |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 23:20 - Jul 1 by everytimeref |
If the Trust won (and there are no guarantees in any litigation ) the only thing the Court could order would be to force the new owners to buy all the Trust's shares at the same price they paid the old directors. There would be no possibility of over turning the sale or forcing Jenkins or anyone else out. The Trust would have no shares left, no seats on the Board and no influence on any decisions.
In addition, if the Trust lose the case they would have to pay their own legal costs plus the other parties' legal costs. |
But on the other hand if they take the offer, they still wouldn't have any meaningful say and their shares could be obliterated into nothing with the owners creating a new share creation diluting the Trusts stake.
The Trust have clearly been prejudiced, I don't see how it can be argued otherwise. So to me the option is £21m in the bank and no say or £6m in the bank and no say.
Surely the decision is easy? What on earth is £6m going to achieve? Certainly not enough to buy a controlling stake of the club in the future. Having any meaningful say in the running of the club disappeared as soon as the judas mob sold their voting rights, so being involved in the running of the club and a seat on the board really shouldn't come into it as right now it is reduced to a token voice and seat - it is essentially meaningless.
It's now simply about money and share value and the offer is measly considering the strength of our legal case. | |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 08:36 - Jul 2 with 3341 views | E20Jack |
Landslide legal action.
Wonder if the vote with Trust members will mirror this as they clearly have spoon fed what they want to happen in their email. | |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 08:44 - Jul 2 with 3322 views | Meraki |
Basically scare tactics. | | | |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 09:05 - Jul 2 with 3286 views | exiledclaseboy |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 08:36 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
Landslide legal action.
Wonder if the vote with Trust members will mirror this as they clearly have spoon fed what they want to happen in their email. |
Landslide? 52/48 (almost). Well it was enough to take us out of the EU I suppose.  |  |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 09:19 - Jul 2 with 3248 views | Polskijack |
"The Trust have clearly been prejudiced, I don't see how it can be argued otherwise. So to me the option is £21m in the bank and no say or £6m in the bank and no say".
It's not either or though as there is a third possibility. The QC has made it clear that whilst we have a good case, a win is far from guaranteed so the third option is we lose and it costs us potentially millions in our legal costs plus theirs, we don't get anything for the shares, they still get diluted as we'll have no money to buy more when they increase the share numbers and the growing relationship between the trust and the board falls apart and Huw is still there anyway.
If this was your money would you risk it? |  | | |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 09:22 - Jul 2 with 3242 views | BillyChong |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 08:36 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
Landslide legal action.
Wonder if the vote with Trust members will mirror this as they clearly have spoon fed what they want to happen in their email. |
Who will be counting the votes? | | | |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 09:23 - Jul 2 with 3236 views | felixstowe_jack |
Hardly a decent sample size about 50 votes then close it once you get the result you like. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 09:29 - Jul 2 with 3223 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 09:23 - Jul 2 by felixstowe_jack |
Hardly a decent sample size about 50 votes then close it once you get the result you like. |
We had around 60 fair votes (42 -17 it was half an hour ago). That represents 3% of the Trusts. It is a very good sample size.
They should have been clever and voted the other side in the same time increments of the other natural votes. I am not wet behind the ears and know when a vote is being rigged, nothing to do with which way it was going.
And then 30 votes in the space of about 15 minutes all one side, all from multi accounts that have never posted before filling up the bottom of the screen. I won't have the poll used as a tool to falsely steer into the wishes of the powers that be.
The fair and natural vote catagorically pointed to legal action. Simple as that.
[Post edited 2 Jul 2017 9:35]
| |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 09:30 - Jul 2 with 3216 views | E20Jack |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 09:22 - Jul 2 by BillyChong |
Who will be counting the votes? |
Very good point. This will have to be addressed. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 09:39 - Jul 2 with 3188 views | felixstowe_jack |
Simple they appoint tellers who collect and count the votes. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 09:41 - Jul 2 with 3182 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 09:39 - Jul 2 by felixstowe_jack |
Simple they appoint tellers who collect and count the votes. |
'neutral' tellers is the point my friend. | |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 09:47 - Jul 2 with 3164 views | Shaky |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 09:09 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
It was 37 for and 12 against at the time of writing.
Suspiciously the other side had about 30 votes in the space of a few minutes as the screen names at the bottom filled up with posters that had not made a post one after another. I suspect the shock of the results compelled certain individuals to use their many accounts.
The powers that be clearly did not like the results. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 9:15]
|
The psychoboy block vote strikes again.
Loyalist automaton to the last breath, eh psychoboy? |  |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 09:52 - Jul 2 with 3162 views | E20Jack |
Huh? No idea what you are talking about there lad?
You were the multi I take it then?  | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:08 - Jul 2 with 3127 views | Neath_Jack |
Where's the poll gone? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
