| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone 20:59 - Dec 7 with 20006 views | Darran |
Just saying
|  |
| |  |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:49 - Dec 8 with 1893 views | waynekerr55 |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:42 - Dec 8 by Uxbridge |
Quite. Jenkins is Chairman, and Dineen is still employed and angling for a directorship. They're pretty bloody relevant to the now. |
Care about the club, by fans for fans, go to the next level etc. etc. [Post edited 8 Dec 2016 10:50]
|  |
| |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:51 - Dec 8 with 1886 views | Uxbridge |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 09:40 - Dec 8 by Smellyplumz |
Interesting comments about loose lips of the board so here's a question, the trust having batted away the first sale of the club and knowing full well that the board would again be looking to sell the club, didn't the trust task Huw Cooze with looking very closely at the board for any signs of a further sale? Baring in mind huws very close relationship with the board (drinking buddy's) didn't this cause doubt/concerns amongst trust members, basically did you wonder which side hc was working for. |
Jenkins and Levien have both publicly came out and stated that discussions were held in private away from Huw Cooze. This sale was not mentioned at board meetings. Only HC can answer if he knew more than he let on, however he says not and he's backed up by the other two on that score at least.
This coozyness (arf) stick has been used a few times, and it's a double edged sword. I agree to a certain part, but it ignores the benefits. The Trust generally viewed it as beneficial that he was as closely engaged with the club as possible. It clearly went too far with the SLO gig, and the friendship comment was unfortunate but understandable in the circumstances .. you work with people day to day for 10 years and you build up relationships. That timeline is an issue in itself though ... the SD role should never have been occupied by someone for that period of time, and it won't be in the future. Personally I'd like it reduced further, but that's another discussion for another day. The SLO salaried role definitely shouldn't have.
Out of interest, I read you were a former trust board member. I'm not sure when that was, but you'll have seen the amount of work HC did at the club as part of his monthly reports. For all the rights and wrongs of everything else, he wasn't sitting on his hands over there. |  |
| |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:55 - Dec 8 with 1850 views | Uxbridge |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:49 - Dec 8 by waynekerr55 |
Care about the club, by fans for fans, go to the next level etc. etc. [Post edited 8 Dec 2016 10:50]
|
Given Pearlman is the de facto commerical bod at the club, you have to wonder what merit there is in the latter being a director. Certainly doesn't merit it on his remaining shareholding, and frankly past performance when compared to other clubs doesn't either. I'll have to dig out those Swiss Ramble reports, they were very illuminating. | |
| |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:56 - Dec 8 with 1837 views | Murph75 |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:51 - Dec 8 by Uxbridge |
Jenkins and Levien have both publicly came out and stated that discussions were held in private away from Huw Cooze. This sale was not mentioned at board meetings. Only HC can answer if he knew more than he let on, however he says not and he's backed up by the other two on that score at least.
This coozyness (arf) stick has been used a few times, and it's a double edged sword. I agree to a certain part, but it ignores the benefits. The Trust generally viewed it as beneficial that he was as closely engaged with the club as possible. It clearly went too far with the SLO gig, and the friendship comment was unfortunate but understandable in the circumstances .. you work with people day to day for 10 years and you build up relationships. That timeline is an issue in itself though ... the SD role should never have been occupied by someone for that period of time, and it won't be in the future. Personally I'd like it reduced further, but that's another discussion for another day. The SLO salaried role definitely shouldn't have.
Out of interest, I read you were a former trust board member. I'm not sure when that was, but you'll have seen the amount of work HC did at the club as part of his monthly reports. For all the rights and wrongs of everything else, he wasn't sitting on his hands over there. |
No doubt HC did do a lot of work for the club. Lets no forget he got paid a decent amount of money to do this work. |  | | |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:57 - Dec 8 with 1832 views | LeonWasGod |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:55 - Dec 8 by Uxbridge |
Given Pearlman is the de facto commerical bod at the club, you have to wonder what merit there is in the latter being a director. Certainly doesn't merit it on his remaining shareholding, and frankly past performance when compared to other clubs doesn't either. I'll have to dig out those Swiss Ramble reports, they were very illuminating. |
It would be a bit naive to assume he'd be given a Directorship on merit, no? That's not how these things normally work. |  | | |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 11:00 - Dec 8 with 1819 views | Uxbridge |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 09:39 - Dec 8 by TheResurrection |
Bollocks, utter bollocks.
Answer me one question.
Why didn't you bomb Cooze out 2 years ago??
Answer that and then try coming back with those tired old excuses, as that's what they are. |
Now there's a question and a fair one although I suspect for different reasons than yours. I don't think anyone should have been in the job for that long.
However I don't believe that replacing him with someone else would have meant the Trust would have had visibility of the deal any earlier. | |
| |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 11:01 - Dec 8 with 1811 views | Uxbridge |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:57 - Dec 8 by LeonWasGod |
It would be a bit naive to assume he'd be given a Directorship on merit, no? That's not how these things normally work. |
If not on merit, then the Trust would never support it. | |
| |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 11:15 - Dec 8 with 1748 views | TheResurrection |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 11:00 - Dec 8 by Uxbridge |
Now there's a question and a fair one although I suspect for different reasons than yours. I don't think anyone should have been in the job for that long.
However I don't believe that replacing him with someone else would have meant the Trust would have had visibility of the deal any earlier. |
Rich Perch.
To answer your question from a little earlier in this thread. It's the continued response's from the Trust and passing away all blame that I can't get behind them fully.
Andrew,
That's absolutely ridiculous. You all knew the score about Cooze, you all knew how close he was, you all knew how tied in he was to the club and his personal income.
Don't even pretend you would not have been able to predict the outrage from fans when the news finally broke after ALL THESE YEARS about his extra remuneration from the Club before you binned him.
This was all too bloody obvious....
So why did you allow him to be OUR Supporters Director at a time we needed a real hard line approach to a set of Directors who were already taken the piss out of the club and only looking after their own interests.
The Trust has nowhere near recovered from this saddest of episodes and no wonder with the constant excuses and passing the buck.
It's poor mate. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 11:21 - Dec 8 with 1706 views | max936 |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:51 - Dec 8 by Uxbridge |
Jenkins and Levien have both publicly came out and stated that discussions were held in private away from Huw Cooze. This sale was not mentioned at board meetings. Only HC can answer if he knew more than he let on, however he says not and he's backed up by the other two on that score at least.
This coozyness (arf) stick has been used a few times, and it's a double edged sword. I agree to a certain part, but it ignores the benefits. The Trust generally viewed it as beneficial that he was as closely engaged with the club as possible. It clearly went too far with the SLO gig, and the friendship comment was unfortunate but understandable in the circumstances .. you work with people day to day for 10 years and you build up relationships. That timeline is an issue in itself though ... the SD role should never have been occupied by someone for that period of time, and it won't be in the future. Personally I'd like it reduced further, but that's another discussion for another day. The SLO salaried role definitely shouldn't have.
Out of interest, I read you were a former trust board member. I'm not sure when that was, but you'll have seen the amount of work HC did at the club as part of his monthly reports. For all the rights and wrongs of everything else, he wasn't sitting on his hands over there. |
I don't agree on relationships built after working together for 10 yrs bit to be honest, if after those 10 yrs of friendship turned out that those friends had gone behind your back and basically shit on you, you'd soon learn that they are not friends buisness or no buisness l'd be battering down their doors and asking why, everyone's different l know, but something this big you'd bound to react. |  |
| |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 11:29 - Dec 8 with 1671 views | TheResurrection |
You can put your life on it that Cooze and Jenkins are still as close as ever even now. | |
| |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 11:30 - Dec 8 with 1667 views | Smellyplumz |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:51 - Dec 8 by Uxbridge |
Jenkins and Levien have both publicly came out and stated that discussions were held in private away from Huw Cooze. This sale was not mentioned at board meetings. Only HC can answer if he knew more than he let on, however he says not and he's backed up by the other two on that score at least.
This coozyness (arf) stick has been used a few times, and it's a double edged sword. I agree to a certain part, but it ignores the benefits. The Trust generally viewed it as beneficial that he was as closely engaged with the club as possible. It clearly went too far with the SLO gig, and the friendship comment was unfortunate but understandable in the circumstances .. you work with people day to day for 10 years and you build up relationships. That timeline is an issue in itself though ... the SD role should never have been occupied by someone for that period of time, and it won't be in the future. Personally I'd like it reduced further, but that's another discussion for another day. The SLO salaried role definitely shouldn't have.
Out of interest, I read you were a former trust board member. I'm not sure when that was, but you'll have seen the amount of work HC did at the club as part of his monthly reports. For all the rights and wrongs of everything else, he wasn't sitting on his hands over there. |
Yeah I was in 2012 but to be honest it wasn't for very long as I had other issues going on. I don't doubt his work done. |  |
|
""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 |
| |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 11:34 - Dec 8 with 1646 views | waynekerr55 |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 11:29 - Dec 8 by TheResurrection |
You can put your life on it that Cooze and Jenkins are still as close as ever even now. |
If true, that would be the saddest thing about this whole episode. | |
| |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 11:40 - Dec 8 with 1617 views | costalotta |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 08:55 - Dec 8 by Uxbridge |
This is the bit where I disagree with some of the comments. The Trust knew perfectly well, especially after the first American deal, that the old shareholders wanted to sell. After the first deal went away (no doubt partly because of the forensic focus the Trust took to the deal), the sellers decided to keep the Trust out of the loop for the second. A deliberate act.
I've seen a few comments saying that the Trust should have known. How? I've seen some comments saying that if the Trust had been more aggressive then they would have. How does that work exactly? Agitate more and that would somehow make the sellers be more ready to talk? It's an entirely counterproductive argument. And even then, would it have driven them away? This was an entirely different deal to the initial minority stake (progressing over 3 years to a majority) Moores and Noell were negotiating. To me it's clear, the sellers deliberately kept the Trust out of the discussions, deliberately kept discussions away from the club, because they didn't want anything interfering with the sale. That's the beginning, middle and end of it. Given the loose lips of the sellers in other regards, I'm amazed they managed it.
From that moment, the Trust has a number of unpalatable options. Come out against the sale, but frankly to what ends. Nobody could tell at that time if the Yanks were a good or a bad thing. The jury is still out to some degree (the criticisms of the team now are largely due to historic actions), although I think they've handled a lot of things very badly.
The Trust could still be a lot more aggressive to the Americans, and indeed could still do so, but it would have to be for a reason, and the consequences of doing that need to be understood also. Maybe it's been too passive on that front, in some ways I'd agree, but sounding off for no reason just means that even the paltry dialogue to date would have been more difficult.
The Trust could come out against Jenkins as Chairman, and might still well do. Lots of people talk about him cashing out, and that's the emotive line, but for me his biggest issues are surrounding the player and manager recruitment over recent years, the lack of proactive planning and the increasingly reactive actions (the last 3 manager appointments have been purely reactionary). The latest Tutumlu revelations don't reflect well on his influence on player recruitment back then either, which to many was a significant defence. While I think everyone knew that Tutumlu had an unhealthy influence at the time, to see it written in such degree was shocking.
I probably shouldn't post when I'm tired and cranky, it'd never end well. Mea culpa. However I've got no interest in being a pinata for all the ills of the club, and that's what the Trust has become for some. That rather grates when, for me, we are where we are because of the actions of other people. |
That may be but its excuses.
The way i see it is, its Horses for courses mate... I guess we got the wrong horse (trust board) on the wrong course (dynamics of the situation) and that is why you didn't see it, or didn't want to see it, or be in a position to actually see it ; all coming. One thing is for sure, you were warned by a few on here and various other ways but never once took it on board. |  | | |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 14:25 - Dec 8 with 1350 views | AngelRangelQS |
Firstly, I'm not defending Cooze or the Trust. I've been a big supporter of the Trust but I'm disappointed in their communication with the fans and with the seemingly little progress that appears to be being made (perhaps the latter is a symptom of the former). However...
Perhaps someone could explain to me what the Trust could have done to "keep an eye" on the board members who deliberately tried to hide things from them?
Hack their emails? Bug their houses? Waterboard them?
I'd also like someone to explain to me how being a pain in their arse would have helped anything.
I'm genuinely interested in what people think they could have done. |  | | |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 14:32 - Dec 8 with 1326 views | jackbazza |
Now I heard in the boozer last night that Toshack is coming in to work with Curtis....only saying mun! |  |
| |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 14:56 - Dec 8 with 1250 views | perchrockjack |
Res. Chris.
I appreciate the love for our club.
I'm sure the Trust believes it could have done better.
Bottom line is ,however, is they aren't and haven't picked our players or any team. This is my point.
We re expending our anger and contempt at the wrong people.
It ain't the yanks fault either
It's pretty much down to one individual who is ,seemingly, irreplaceable.
A man ,who, in my opinion, has got away with corporate manslaughter and the fact this jerk is still calling the shots, is the reason ,the ONLY reason why the yanks owners can be criticised.
I say to the people of Swansea and Swansea City fans...drive this chump outta town. |  |
| |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 15:09 - Dec 8 with 1198 views | monmouth |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:55 - Dec 8 by Uxbridge |
Given Pearlman is the de facto commerical bod at the club, you have to wonder what merit there is in the latter being a director. Certainly doesn't merit it on his remaining shareholding, and frankly past performance when compared to other clubs doesn't either. I'll have to dig out those Swiss Ramble reports, they were very illuminating. |
Make sure Stuart has them before the discussions of whether Dineen becomes a director. |  |
| |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 15:11 - Dec 8 with 1181 views | LeonWasGod |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 11:01 - Dec 8 by Uxbridge |
If not on merit, then the Trust would never support it. |
Could the Trust block it though? Do all need to be in agreement or is it a majority vote? | | | |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 15:33 - Dec 8 with 1099 views | SwaneeRiver |
Dreaded Chairman's Vote of Confidence - Bye bye Bob !! | | | |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 15:50 - Dec 8 with 1061 views | Uxbridge |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 15:09 - Dec 8 by monmouth |
Make sure Stuart has them before the discussions of whether Dineen becomes a director. |
Didn't think of that ...  | |
| |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 15:52 - Dec 8 with 1049 views | monmouth |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 15:50 - Dec 8 by Uxbridge |
Didn't think of that ... |
Ha. Ok. Fair cop. | |
| |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 15:57 - Dec 8 with 1009 views | jasper_T |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 14:32 - Dec 8 by jackbazza |
Now I heard in the boozer last night that Toshack is coming in to work with Curtis....only saying mun! |
Cameron Toshack. | | | |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 15:58 - Dec 8 with 1009 views | jack247 |
Stability. I suppose you could class playing shit consistently as stable | | | |
| Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 16:03 - Dec 8 with 993 views | swan65split |
Last thing we need at this Football club is Relegation, especially after the "SELLOUT" |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
