| Lisa Clement 22:40 - Feb 17 with 6871 views | builthjack |
Tied the Trust board in knots tonight.
It looks like Dalton, Rupert etc didnt have a bloody clue what they were signing.
It really is unbelievable. |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |  |
| Lisa Clement on 22:46 - Feb 17 with 3101 views | Chief |
Yea and the bits they do confirm with confidence are terrible!
The protected 5% can only be sold with permission of the Americans was a good one.
Oh and this agreement seems to waive rights to any future legal proceedings against the Americans in future should the trust feel prejudiced again.
It's absolutely astonishing. |  |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 22:49 - Feb 17 with 3087 views | builthjack |
| Lisa Clement on 22:46 - Feb 17 by Chief |
Yea and the bits they do confirm with confidence are terrible!
The protected 5% can only be sold with permission of the Americans was a good one.
Oh and this agreement seems to waive rights to any future legal proceedings against the Americans in future should the trust feel prejudiced again.
It's absolutely astonishing. |
Yes. Can only be sold with the Yanks permission.
Will be glad when the Yanks get out of our club. | |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Lisa Clement on 23:35 - Feb 17 with 3000 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Lisa Clement on 22:49 - Feb 17 by builthjack |
Yes. Can only be sold with the Yanks permission.
Will be glad when the Yanks get out of our club. |
The 5% can be sold is actually very good news for the SCST if verified. This was not highlighted in the earlier statement.
But why would the US people want to control the 5% protected shares?
They have given something away by ensuring it is not diluted. It is therefore the minimum the Trust would get if the rest of the holding was significantly diluted. At PL prices £10m.
a) It is leverage over the Trust. The Trust has no drag on deal so if the Trust attempt to chase away what they consider an unsuitable buyer they could refuse to release the 5% at a later date. (Pay ball or else).
b) It could be a formality to stop the Trust selling to unsuitable people. For example Vincent Tan as an extreme case.
c) It could be to prevent sale to unsuitable minor share holders they have fallen out with in the club. Again a formality
d) It could be a tool to prevent the Trust undercutting the price promoted by the US people.
e) Is it associated with an "exit fee" to be paid? Is this even legal?.
If the club gets back to the Premier League the sellers / US people will argue they should have this right because they have effectively bought them this 5%. at £300k per share. This is a possible argument with the conditional £1.5m payment.
The 5% question was the important question as I proposed earlier. Under what circumstance would the US people block its sale needs careful consideration I would imagine.
Just musings trying to think from a US point of view. [Post edited 17 Feb 2022 23:37]
|  |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 23:43 - Feb 17 with 2975 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Doesn't surprise me, Lisa is very competent. These people aren't.
Anyone record the meeting out if interest? |  |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 05:13 - Feb 18 with 2853 views | 73__73 |
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Lisa on the trust board not long ago.
The day the club reached the PL, the trust should have known it was the start of the end for them.
One reason for that was the poor calibre of people running the trust. |  |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 05:35 - Feb 18 with 2861 views | vetchonian |
| Lisa Clement on 05:13 - Feb 18 by 73__73 |
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Lisa on the trust board not long ago.
The day the club reached the PL, the trust should have known it was the start of the end for them.
One reason for that was the poor calibre of people running the trust. |
She was co opted as an affiliate and was there until December when she resigned along with others as it seems she was kept out of the loop and not listened to despite being part of the legal sub team | |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 06:55 - Feb 18 with 2832 views | Chief |
| Lisa Clement on 23:35 - Feb 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The 5% can be sold is actually very good news for the SCST if verified. This was not highlighted in the earlier statement.
But why would the US people want to control the 5% protected shares?
They have given something away by ensuring it is not diluted. It is therefore the minimum the Trust would get if the rest of the holding was significantly diluted. At PL prices £10m.
a) It is leverage over the Trust. The Trust has no drag on deal so if the Trust attempt to chase away what they consider an unsuitable buyer they could refuse to release the 5% at a later date. (Pay ball or else).
b) It could be a formality to stop the Trust selling to unsuitable people. For example Vincent Tan as an extreme case.
c) It could be to prevent sale to unsuitable minor share holders they have fallen out with in the club. Again a formality
d) It could be a tool to prevent the Trust undercutting the price promoted by the US people.
e) Is it associated with an "exit fee" to be paid? Is this even legal?.
If the club gets back to the Premier League the sellers / US people will argue they should have this right because they have effectively bought them this 5%. at £300k per share. This is a possible argument with the conditional £1.5m payment.
The 5% question was the important question as I proposed earlier. Under what circumstance would the US people block its sale needs careful consideration I would imagine.
Just musings trying to think from a US point of view. [Post edited 17 Feb 2022 23:37]
|
"Just musings trying to think from a US point of view"
How out of character | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Lisa Clement on 08:16 - Feb 18 with 2729 views | KeithHaynes |
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. |  |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 08:49 - Feb 18 with 2665 views | Vincent_Vega |
Times like this you just need Vodka on ewe Weetabix. |  |
| Boycott Shampoo......Demand Real Poo!!! |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 09:51 - Feb 18 with 2582 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Lisa Clement on 08:16 - Feb 18 by KeithHaynes |
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. |
I don’t think hindsight cuts it for something like this. It wasn’t a snap decision, it was a considered decision.
They have had years of people telling them these deals are no good and explaining in great detail why, years of paid counsel paid for in part by the membership from legal professionals telling them that there is more than a good chance of winning this case, reputable people at their beck and call that they chose to ignore and finally the mandate of the membership.
To make the opposite decision, in secret and then blame hindsight just doesn’t compute for me.
They all need throwing out. | |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 10:46 - Feb 18 with 2504 views | union_jack |
| Lisa Clement on 23:43 - Feb 17 by Dr_Parnassus |
Doesn't surprise me, Lisa is very competent. These people aren't.
Anyone record the meeting out if interest? |
London Lisa is a VERY smart cookie without a doubt. In fact all ex Olchfaonians are😄
She should frequent this board rather than the other one  . |  |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 11:00 - Feb 18 with 2482 views | Badlands |
As some of us have been saying for years;
The Trust is an amateur consortium. They would have been decimated in a court of law. Any claim that might have been appropriate would have been against their former partners, i.e. the sellers not the buyers. And, we keep coming back to the statement that the Trust would not sell any shares thereby excluding itself from the private shareholders sale of their assets .. which, imo, would have significantly reduced the attractiveness of prospective buyers taking on the Swans.
But, the 'fans' who have spent years claiming the American consortium should be kicked out are now moaning about the Trust's actions. |  |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 11:02 - Feb 18 with 2470 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Lisa Clement on 11:00 - Feb 18 by Badlands |
As some of us have been saying for years;
The Trust is an amateur consortium. They would have been decimated in a court of law. Any claim that might have been appropriate would have been against their former partners, i.e. the sellers not the buyers. And, we keep coming back to the statement that the Trust would not sell any shares thereby excluding itself from the private shareholders sale of their assets .. which, imo, would have significantly reduced the attractiveness of prospective buyers taking on the Swans.
But, the 'fans' who have spent years claiming the American consortium should be kicked out are now moaning about the Trust's actions. |
It wasn’t a court of law and they wouldn’t have been representing themselves.
That’s the second time I’ve seen a similar post to that today.
Bizarre. | |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 11:32 - Feb 18 with 2430 views | Boundy |
| Lisa Clement on 11:00 - Feb 18 by Badlands |
As some of us have been saying for years;
The Trust is an amateur consortium. They would have been decimated in a court of law. Any claim that might have been appropriate would have been against their former partners, i.e. the sellers not the buyers. And, we keep coming back to the statement that the Trust would not sell any shares thereby excluding itself from the private shareholders sale of their assets .. which, imo, would have significantly reduced the attractiveness of prospective buyers taking on the Swans.
But, the 'fans' who have spent years claiming the American consortium should be kicked out are now moaning about the Trust's actions. |
To say the Trust would have been decimated is incorrect , the case would have led by a Barrister who would have presented the evidence , the Trust representatives would have been witnesses, not the other way round . | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 11:43 - Feb 18 with 2409 views | vetchonian |
| Lisa Clement on 11:32 - Feb 18 by Boundy |
To say the Trust would have been decimated is incorrect , the case would have led by a Barrister who would have presented the evidence , the Trust representatives would have been witnesses, not the other way round . |
It is so strange how people can grasp facts.....
I mean its not as if there havent been post upon post of the legal costs.....ie the engangement of counsel..
I cannot beleive that some folk on here believe the Turst guys would eb in court presenting the case.....called as witnesses perhaps and hopefully properly briefed before hand....mind you given the recent performance of the current Trust board that would have been a challenge | |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 11:52 - Feb 18 with 2400 views | max936 |
| Lisa Clement on 11:02 - Feb 18 by Dr_Parnassus |
It wasn’t a court of law and they wouldn’t have been representing themselves.
That’s the second time I’ve seen a similar post to that today.
Bizarre. |
Its not bizarre when its coming from posters with agenda's, which a few on here clearly have.
Trust [previous trust board] never said they would never sell the Trusts shares, that's another myth. |  |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 12:17 - Feb 18 with 2358 views | builthjack |
| Lisa Clement on 08:00 - Feb 18 by Tummer_from_Texas |
Not to be nitpicky, but US point of view is understood as nothing beyond the Levien/Kaplan point of view, right?
I've seen no sign that any of the Stateside Jacks think any different of those a-holes than the locals do, nor are any less frustrated with them.
I don't speak for anyone but me, but I want them out ASAP as much as Builth and everyone else here.
Sorry, this thread is about the trust developments, an infinitely more pressing topic, just needed to throw that out there. Carry on.  |
Hi Tummer, hope all is well with you.
When i say Yanks, I actually mean the owners, not the fans.
I have met many stateside Jacks over the years, lovely people. | |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Lisa Clement on 12:32 - Feb 18 with 2336 views | Chief |
| Lisa Clement on 11:00 - Feb 18 by Badlands |
As some of us have been saying for years;
The Trust is an amateur consortium. They would have been decimated in a court of law. Any claim that might have been appropriate would have been against their former partners, i.e. the sellers not the buyers. And, we keep coming back to the statement that the Trust would not sell any shares thereby excluding itself from the private shareholders sale of their assets .. which, imo, would have significantly reduced the attractiveness of prospective buyers taking on the Swans.
But, the 'fans' who have spent years claiming the American consortium should be kicked out are now moaning about the Trust's actions. |
Knowing the Americans like you do, you should be more informed than this.
Shocking lack of knowledge. [Post edited 18 Feb 2022 12:33]
| |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 12:44 - Feb 18 with 2317 views | Badlands |
| Lisa Clement on 11:43 - Feb 18 by vetchonian |
It is so strange how people can grasp facts.....
I mean its not as if there havent been post upon post of the legal costs.....ie the engangement of counsel..
I cannot beleive that some folk on here believe the Turst guys would eb in court presenting the case.....called as witnesses perhaps and hopefully properly briefed before hand....mind you given the recent performance of the current Trust board that would have been a challenge |
Didn’t the people who were previously underwriting the costs pull out? Thought I read that somewhere.
'Their key concern regarded the possibility of jeopardising confidential details of their final settlement, along with those regarding funding and insurance.
The Trust noted its fears over losing funders and insurers that would have led to the Trust being reliant on its own resources to fund legal proceedings.' (WoL))
What could be so confidential that it needed black lining?
Yes, the Trust would have hired a legal team but who would have been able to finance and sustain the financing of the best available? And, that team would only have been able to use the information provided by the Trust.
I'd be flabbergasted to hear the Trust officials didn’t act on sound legal advice. And that advice would be to settle out of court. | |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 12:50 - Feb 18 with 2307 views | Chief |
| Lisa Clement on 12:44 - Feb 18 by Badlands |
Didn’t the people who were previously underwriting the costs pull out? Thought I read that somewhere.
'Their key concern regarded the possibility of jeopardising confidential details of their final settlement, along with those regarding funding and insurance.
The Trust noted its fears over losing funders and insurers that would have led to the Trust being reliant on its own resources to fund legal proceedings.' (WoL))
What could be so confidential that it needed black lining?
Yes, the Trust would have hired a legal team but who would have been able to finance and sustain the financing of the best available? And, that team would only have been able to use the information provided by the Trust.
I'd be flabbergasted to hear the Trust officials didn’t act on sound legal advice. And that advice would be to settle out of court. |
And why did the Americans settle then? Sounds like an admission of guilt to me. Prince Andrewesque | |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 13:18 - Feb 18 with 2243 views | Dewi1jack |
| Lisa Clement on 12:50 - Feb 18 by Chief |
And why did the Americans settle then? Sounds like an admission of guilt to me. Prince Andrewesque |
Aye.
Strange how the club settled the legal case against it and the Trust as well.
Oh hang on.
The case wasn't against the club in the first place.
You missed that bit out badlands.
Wonder why |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 14:17 - Feb 18 with 2159 views | onehunglow |
Shouldn't Lisa be running our club.
With her knowledge and associates,surely she could head a consortium and rid us of these Jerks for owners. | |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 14:22 - Feb 18 with 2147 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
So....did Dalton say if he took any advice before signing all this? If he didn't he's unfit for this sort of office. |  |
| |
| Lisa Clement on 16:00 - Feb 18 with 2047 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Lisa Clement on 12:50 - Feb 18 by Chief |
And why did the Americans settle then? Sounds like an admission of guilt to me. Prince Andrewesque |
They have given the Trust what they asked for. Some form of protection the 5%.
The £500k is relatively small beer and possibly a small acceptance by them of failing to resolve the issue earlier. It needed a master networker Silverstein to smooth thing s over and come to s settlement.
It gives the reasonable people in the Trust something to show for their efforts.
the fact that the protected 5% can be sold puts a whole new complexion on the deal. In the event of promotion to the PL it would be worth at least £10m.
The Trust retain most of their shares and Swansea should be able to return to the PL in the next 25 years. Their holding will probably not fall below 10% or so, Inflation is currently running at faster than dilution. Premier league team are not getting cheaper. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
