| Swans fans fight back on 19:08 - Dec 17 with 2367 views | Darran |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:00 - Dec 17 by SwanLuke |
Why does it always turn personal on here,
If you are not on board with this new supporters group then have your say but leave it at that. People need to put their personal issues aside and think about the good of the club we all love. |
I agree Luke. I have no idea why the fuçk they’re even mentioning me. |  |
|  |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:12 - Dec 17 with 2365 views | SwanLuke |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:08 - Dec 17 by Darran |
I agree Luke. I have no idea why the fuçk they’re even mentioning me. |
Dar you may divide opinion but having known you for many years I can categorically say that you speak in the best interests of the club. |  | | |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:30 - Dec 17 with 2311 views | Jackfath |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:00 - Dec 17 by SwanLuke |
Why does it always turn personal on here,
If you are not on board with this new supporters group then have your say but leave it at that. People need to put their personal issues aside and think about the good of the club we all love. |
I echo this 100%. |  |
| |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:33 - Dec 17 with 2287 views | Darran |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:12 - Dec 17 by SwanLuke |
Dar you may divide opinion but having known you for many years I can categorically say that you speak in the best interests of the club. |
Thank you Luke. | |
| |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:34 - Dec 17 with 2296 views | Swanjaxs |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:30 - Dec 17 by Jackfath |
I echo this 100%. |
Adding my 100% too! Always the same culprits! Pathetic |  |
| |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:35 - Dec 17 with 2288 views | 1983 |
 |  |
| |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:38 - Dec 17 with 2266 views | Swanzay |
| Swans fans fight back on 17:31 - Dec 17 by Phil_S |
To be fair we can get our act together - there are 20+ people discussing various things that have done just that (and also had a discussion with the Union today as well to put minds at rest)
The comments added to this are the ones that aren't needed - can I suggest that personal squabbles are kept to private message or, better still, in individual heads? |
Hi Phil, I'm interested to know what you feel the new group can achieve that the Trust couldn't or didn't want to whilst you were Chair and why?
Surely the Trust held all the aces, so to speak, connections and financial means to facilitate actions, yet sat back and did nothing?
Also why did you believe originally that the sale of shares was the in the best of interest of the Trust back in the summer and push for that?
I know that your resignation statement stated that you felt the terms had changed, but why did you feel so pro sale before hand? |  | | |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:55 - Dec 17 with 2219 views | Phil_S |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:38 - Dec 17 by Swanzay |
Hi Phil, I'm interested to know what you feel the new group can achieve that the Trust couldn't or didn't want to whilst you were Chair and why?
Surely the Trust held all the aces, so to speak, connections and financial means to facilitate actions, yet sat back and did nothing?
Also why did you believe originally that the sale of shares was the in the best of interest of the Trust back in the summer and push for that?
I know that your resignation statement stated that you felt the terms had changed, but why did you feel so pro sale before hand? |
So in answer to the question it is in the main in the first part of the statements - whether people agree or not (and this has been stated many times) the Trust will never be able to be a protest group whilst it owns 21% of the shareholding. It is not for. a desire not to be but it wont be that.
As for the sale of shares, this was covered yesterday in a discussion with E20 that you were also part of. But to summarise again, it was in the interests of the organisation to facilitate a working relationship and not take action against the club so the deal was right to be recommended based on the desire not to take the club to court
The moment the club continued their dismissal of the trust (and I see no point in people continuing ti point out that they always believed it would be the case as I get that bit) by even suggesting a change in the terms then that was it for me.
I would remind you that at both forums on the subject I referred to the deal as a not a good one but probably the best of the options available.
The new group will not be restricted by any restrictions that may impact on shareholders and personalities within it are not relevant. IMO. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swans fans fight back on 19:59 - Dec 17 with 2194 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:55 - Dec 17 by Phil_S |
So in answer to the question it is in the main in the first part of the statements - whether people agree or not (and this has been stated many times) the Trust will never be able to be a protest group whilst it owns 21% of the shareholding. It is not for. a desire not to be but it wont be that.
As for the sale of shares, this was covered yesterday in a discussion with E20 that you were also part of. But to summarise again, it was in the interests of the organisation to facilitate a working relationship and not take action against the club so the deal was right to be recommended based on the desire not to take the club to court
The moment the club continued their dismissal of the trust (and I see no point in people continuing ti point out that they always believed it would be the case as I get that bit) by even suggesting a change in the terms then that was it for me.
I would remind you that at both forums on the subject I referred to the deal as a not a good one but probably the best of the options available.
The new group will not be restricted by any restrictions that may impact on shareholders and personalities within it are not relevant. IMO. |
That first para. I don’t agree. It could be if it wanted to. The shareholding doesn’t necessarily preclude that. |  |
| |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:05 - Dec 17 with 2175 views | Phil_S |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:59 - Dec 17 by exiledclaseboy |
That first para. I don’t agree. It could be if it wanted to. The shareholding doesn’t necessarily preclude that. |
Fair comment and if it happens then more power to the supporter. Still not sure it will based on my experience, yours may be totally different | | | |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:06 - Dec 17 with 2166 views | TheResurrection |
| Swans fans fight back on 19:55 - Dec 17 by Phil_S |
So in answer to the question it is in the main in the first part of the statements - whether people agree or not (and this has been stated many times) the Trust will never be able to be a protest group whilst it owns 21% of the shareholding. It is not for. a desire not to be but it wont be that.
As for the sale of shares, this was covered yesterday in a discussion with E20 that you were also part of. But to summarise again, it was in the interests of the organisation to facilitate a working relationship and not take action against the club so the deal was right to be recommended based on the desire not to take the club to court
The moment the club continued their dismissal of the trust (and I see no point in people continuing ti point out that they always believed it would be the case as I get that bit) by even suggesting a change in the terms then that was it for me.
I would remind you that at both forums on the subject I referred to the deal as a not a good one but probably the best of the options available.
The new group will not be restricted by any restrictions that may impact on shareholders and personalities within it are not relevant. IMO. |
Totally disagree. The Trust while you chaired was like that, it didn't need to be then and certainly not now.
And the word protest is too exaggerated in this context but it without doubt has the means and capabilities to stand up for itself and its members, something it has never done to any sort of degree. |  |
| |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:08 - Dec 17 with 2154 views | Phil_S |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:06 - Dec 17 by TheResurrection |
Totally disagree. The Trust while you chaired was like that, it didn't need to be then and certainly not now.
And the word protest is too exaggerated in this context but it without doubt has the means and capabilities to stand up for itself and its members, something it has never done to any sort of degree. |
OK that is your view. No desire to go continually around in circles arguing against each other.
Mentally draining and serves no purpose | | | |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:08 - Dec 17 with 2154 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:05 - Dec 17 by Phil_S |
Fair comment and if it happens then more power to the supporter. Still not sure it will based on my experience, yours may be totally different |
I doubt it will, I was speaking theoretically. There’s nothing stopping the Trust being more vocal and proactive in any area it feels fit. It just chooses not to at the moment. I can’t imagine that’s going to change any time soon. [Post edited 17 Dec 2017 20:09]
| |
| |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:09 - Dec 17 with 2148 views | Phil_S |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:08 - Dec 17 by exiledclaseboy |
I doubt it will, I was speaking theoretically. There’s nothing stopping the Trust being more vocal and proactive in any area it feels fit. It just chooses not to at the moment. I can’t imagine that’s going to change any time soon. [Post edited 17 Dec 2017 20:09]
|
So you agree then :D | | | |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:14 - Dec 17 with 2118 views | TheResurrection |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:08 - Dec 17 by Phil_S |
OK that is your view. No desire to go continually around in circles arguing against each other.
Mentally draining and serves no purpose |
Yes but you are derailing the likes of Lisa and Cudey before they've even began. I know that's not your intention but this group will undermine their involvement. | |
| |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:20 - Dec 17 with 2085 views | Phil_S |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:14 - Dec 17 by TheResurrection |
Yes but you are derailing the likes of Lisa and Cudey before they've even began. I know that's not your intention but this group will undermine their involvement. |
No it wont. And they dont believe that either. | | | |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:22 - Dec 17 with 2063 views | dobjack2 |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:08 - Dec 17 by exiledclaseboy |
I doubt it will, I was speaking theoretically. There’s nothing stopping the Trust being more vocal and proactive in any area it feels fit. It just chooses not to at the moment. I can’t imagine that’s going to change any time soon. [Post edited 17 Dec 2017 20:09]
|
The trust is only as vocal as a Democratic vote of the board members allows it to be.
Unfortunately the majority on the board that we have voted on/allowed to be voted on appear to be too weak to deal effectively with the owners and chairman. Accordingly they take the pi$$.
The only way that will change is by co-ordinated action. |  | | |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:22 - Dec 17 with 2060 views | TheResurrection |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:20 - Dec 17 by Phil_S |
No it wont. And they dont believe that either. |
I know what Lisa has said to you, Phil, and you should believe her. | |
| |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:26 - Dec 17 with 2028 views | Phil_S |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:22 - Dec 17 by TheResurrection |
I know what Lisa has said to you, Phil, and you should believe her. |
Lisa and I havent spoken today since the launch of this
We did exchange messages yesterday on a completely unrelated subject and I did email her (and a few other people today)
As said though we can continue to go around in circles, you dont agree with the people who have put this together - you have said a couple of times.
Arguing the same point constantly is just pointless IMO
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:28 - Dec 17 with 2013 views | Swanzay |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:09 - Dec 17 by Phil_S |
So you agree then :D |
But why was there so much radio silence and lack of transparency under your chairmanship, its nothing short of disgraceful!
Were the other board members protecting their own egos or what, it certainly seems like it, as they continue to do so... | | | |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:30 - Dec 17 with 1997 views | Phil_S |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:28 - Dec 17 by Swanzay |
But why was there so much radio silence and lack of transparency under your chairmanship, its nothing short of disgraceful!
Were the other board members protecting their own egos or what, it certainly seems like it, as they continue to do so... |
There was a complete lack of people willing to put their head above the parapet. It was mainly left to just three or four to the bulk of it.
There will be some reading this that dont like that but when you give 2/3 hours a day to work through something in private you are very reluctant to then spend another 2 hours arguing the toss on here or constantly updating members
Having more people involved prepared to speak out is a good thing and hopefully over time things will change for the better. But read the comments Nigel made about last week and that will take time | | | |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:31 - Dec 17 with 1983 views | Darran |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:26 - Dec 17 by Phil_S |
Lisa and I havent spoken today since the launch of this
We did exchange messages yesterday on a completely unrelated subject and I did email her (and a few other people today)
As said though we can continue to go around in circles, you dont agree with the people who have put this together - you have said a couple of times.
Arguing the same point constantly is just pointless IMO
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Just ban him Phil. | |
| |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:36 - Dec 17 with 1963 views | Swanzay |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:31 - Dec 17 by Darran |
Just ban him Phil. |
Oh go and have a lie down or something, stop trying to derail the thread. | | | |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:39 - Dec 17 with 1949 views | fbreath |
Just reading the scsa site this paragraph has spelling mistake
The fact that some of them contimue to goad Swansea City fans on social media,
Should say continue. |  |
| We are the first Welsh club to reach the Premier League Simples |
| |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:42 - Dec 17 with 1933 views | Swanzay |
| Swans fans fight back on 20:30 - Dec 17 by Phil_S |
There was a complete lack of people willing to put their head above the parapet. It was mainly left to just three or four to the bulk of it.
There will be some reading this that dont like that but when you give 2/3 hours a day to work through something in private you are very reluctant to then spend another 2 hours arguing the toss on here or constantly updating members
Having more people involved prepared to speak out is a good thing and hopefully over time things will change for the better. But read the comments Nigel made about last week and that will take time |
OK, so your saying that even as Chair you were fighting with one hand behind your back so to speak due to resistance from other board members?
When did these cracks start to appear within the board?
Can you please send me a link of Nigels comments or point me in the right direction? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
