| Conflict of interest 05:10 - Feb 22 with 23472 views | Loyal |
It was mentioned the other day Phil running the site and being on the trust was a conflict of interest.
I can't find any response by E20 after alleging there was. Probably me. Is there a link ? |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |  |
| Conflict of interest on 10:02 - Feb 22 with 6202 views | pencoedjack |
Maybe I am naive but I have faith in Phil & other trust members.
Have they done things wrong ... yes
Are they acting to the best of their ability for the future of our club .... I believe so.
As for Phil it’s his board he can do what he wants imo, if you don’t like it don’t log on & create your own site. |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 14:12 - Feb 22 with 6022 views | jasper_T |
It would only be meaningful conflict of interest if this were the only Swansea City forum in existence and we had to pay to post here. |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 14:13 - Feb 22 with 6018 views | Darran |
| Conflict of interest on 14:12 - Feb 22 by jasper_T |
It would only be meaningful conflict of interest if this were the only Swansea City forum in existence and we had to pay to post here. |
He’s minted mind. [Post edited 22 Feb 2019 15:54]
|  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 15:28 - Feb 22 with 5900 views | Banosswan |
| Conflict of interest on 14:13 - Feb 22 by Darran |
He’s minted mind. [Post edited 22 Feb 2019 15:54]
|
I know he's lost weight but I wouldn't go that far. |  |
| Ever since my son was... never conceived, because I've never had consensual sex without money involved... I've always kind of looked at you as... a thing, that I could live next to... in accordance with state laws. | | Poll: | How do you like your steak? |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 16:11 - Feb 22 with 5819 views | The_E20 |
My response, and indeed the thread, got deleted a matter of minutes after I responded... ironically enough.
Anyway, even though you don’t answer my questions, I will be polite enough to answer yours.
The Trust is not a political party, it should have loose and moveable aims but no specific ideology. It is a body designed to be the fans voice in the boardroom and to carry out fans wishes. It should not be a body that manipulates, lies, covers up those lies, silences opposition voices, shapes discussion and influences votes to carry out THEIR wishes.
This is the main fans platform and is used to selectively leak Trust information as well as further Trust ideology with anti board rhetoric and the online bullying of any voices against that, be that actively participating or neglecting duties in order to allow it.
Phil himself has said that it would be a conflict of interest only if it was being used in conjunction with Trust agenda, this after emailing a load of prospective SCSA members suggesting they use the site for propaganda due to its reach and influence - I don’t think anyone can even attempt to make a case that it isn’t. If they do try and make a case for it, then I would be awfully amused to read it. [Post edited 22 Feb 2019 22:42]
|  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 18:26 - Feb 22 with 5666 views | MoscowJack |
FFS, is this a real question?
Personally, I think it's a good thing and wish that the club's owners were as accessible. The only people who wouldn't like is are the ones who don't want the Trust to have maximum exposure to the fans. | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 18:35 - Feb 22 with 5639 views | whitemountains |
| Conflict of interest on 16:11 - Feb 22 by The_E20 |
My response, and indeed the thread, got deleted a matter of minutes after I responded... ironically enough.
Anyway, even though you don’t answer my questions, I will be polite enough to answer yours.
The Trust is not a political party, it should have loose and moveable aims but no specific ideology. It is a body designed to be the fans voice in the boardroom and to carry out fans wishes. It should not be a body that manipulates, lies, covers up those lies, silences opposition voices, shapes discussion and influences votes to carry out THEIR wishes.
This is the main fans platform and is used to selectively leak Trust information as well as further Trust ideology with anti board rhetoric and the online bullying of any voices against that, be that actively participating or neglecting duties in order to allow it.
Phil himself has said that it would be a conflict of interest only if it was being used in conjunction with Trust agenda, this after emailing a load of prospective SCSA members suggesting they use the site for propaganda due to its reach and influence - I don’t think anyone can even attempt to make a case that it isn’t. If they do try and make a case for it, then I would be awfully amused to read it. [Post edited 22 Feb 2019 22:42]
|
Its aims are :
1. To maintain a professional football club in Swansea;
2. To bring the football club closer to it’s local community;
3. To have elected representation on the Board of Swansea City Football Club;
4. To maintain and increase a stake in the club, in pursuance of the aims above;
5. To represent the needs and aims of our members at all times;
1. Tick
2. Tick although what does it do ?
3. Tick
4. Interesting if shares were sold
5. Mmmmm | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 19:04 - Feb 22 with 5586 views | exiledclaseboy |
Tell you what doesn’t help, starting new threads designed specifically to poke the bear into yet another response saying the same old guff over and over again. Don’t feed them, they won’t bite. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Conflict of interest on 20:01 - Feb 22 with 5496 views | ItchySphincter |
| Conflict of interest on 19:04 - Feb 22 by exiledclaseboy |
Tell you what doesn’t help, starting new threads designed specifically to poke the bear into yet another response saying the same old guff over and over again. Don’t feed them, they won’t bite. |
Yeah, the mods locked my thread so that it would sink. Not really fair as it was a perfect representation of who is wrong with this board. |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 22:06 - Feb 22 with 5350 views | The_E20 |
This is a perfect example of Trust misdirection on this thread. I make a damn good point and we have a Trust board member rushing on to try and discredit the poster rather than the content and obviously, as you can see, the sheep respond in kind. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 22:14 - Feb 22 with 5339 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 18:35 - Feb 22 by whitemountains |
Its aims are :
1. To maintain a professional football club in Swansea;
2. To bring the football club closer to it’s local community;
3. To have elected representation on the Board of Swansea City Football Club;
4. To maintain and increase a stake in the club, in pursuance of the aims above;
5. To represent the needs and aims of our members at all times;
1. Tick
2. Tick although what does it do ?
3. Tick
4. Interesting if shares were sold
5. Mmmmm |
That’s why they should be loose aims.
They stuck with that (specifically 4.) as a reason not to enter negotiations for their shares. These aims were rigid and not fit for purpose. We had (and still have) people at the helm that have absolutely no business acumen and as a result do not possess any kind of corporate foresight. The second the shares were sold, those aims should have changed - and even before, they knew the shareholders wanted out, they should have shouted from the rooftops they were also actively looking to sell.
They also laugh in the face of 5. As I said they should be an organisation that acts on the wishes of the members. Yet the 12/13 however many there are do the opposite. With the way the membership is they can very easily (and do very easily) change that to ensure the members act on the boards wishes.
Remember the tail wagging dog man? To think that thought was his and his alone is naive in the extreme. I see they still haven’t confessed to the lies they told the other day and have instead decided to go on a locking spree. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 22:18 - Feb 22 with 5330 views | NeathJack |
| Conflict of interest on 22:14 - Feb 22 by The_E20 |
That’s why they should be loose aims.
They stuck with that (specifically 4.) as a reason not to enter negotiations for their shares. These aims were rigid and not fit for purpose. We had (and still have) people at the helm that have absolutely no business acumen and as a result do not possess any kind of corporate foresight. The second the shares were sold, those aims should have changed - and even before, they knew the shareholders wanted out, they should have shouted from the rooftops they were also actively looking to sell.
They also laugh in the face of 5. As I said they should be an organisation that acts on the wishes of the members. Yet the 12/13 however many there are do the opposite. With the way the membership is they can very easily (and do very easily) change that to ensure the members act on the boards wishes.
Remember the tail wagging dog man? To think that thought was his and his alone is naive in the extreme. I see they still haven’t confessed to the lies they told the other day and have instead decided to go on a locking spree. |
Do you think the Trust should take the legal action that will be voted upon? |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 22:19 - Feb 22 with 5325 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 18:26 - Feb 22 by MoscowJack |
FFS, is this a real question?
Personally, I think it's a good thing and wish that the club's owners were as accessible. The only people who wouldn't like is are the ones who don't want the Trust to have maximum exposure to the fans. |
Well, the people that wouldn’t like it are the ones that want the power with the fans not manipulated by the board. You say the Trust are accessible on here, how? They are accessible if you have an opinion that matches theirs.
I was trying to get to the bottom of a blatant lie and cover up this week and in response the chairman locks the threads to shut down that line of questioning while other board members discredit the poster and attempt to stifle debate.
The sinister part is, it’s then hidden behind “it’s not a Trust forum, they can do what they like”. If they wish to have maximum exposure to the fans by using this site, then to avoid the clear conflict of interest it needs to be officially Trust run - but they won’t do that as they know they will then be held accountable for their actions on here. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 22:22 - Feb 22 with 5318 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 22:18 - Feb 22 by NeathJack |
Do you think the Trust should take the legal action that will be voted upon? |
Absolutely, they should have 2 years ago when I was telling them to. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 22:27 - Feb 22 with 5303 views | NeathJack |
| Conflict of interest on 22:22 - Feb 22 by The_E20 |
Absolutely, they should have 2 years ago when I was telling them to. |
Good, as was I.
Do you think that going over and over old ground when the Trust board make up has changed considerably since that time, and is now progressing towards legal action with a vote scheduled for next month, is beneficial to achieving this aim? | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 22:36 - Feb 22 with 5279 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 22:27 - Feb 22 by NeathJack |
Good, as was I.
Do you think that going over and over old ground when the Trust board make up has changed considerably since that time, and is now progressing towards legal action with a vote scheduled for next month, is beneficial to achieving this aim? |
It isn’t going over old ground, it is very much current ground.
I openly said I would be willing to give this new reformed (semi reformed) Trust a fair chance before passing judgement in the hope previous lessons have been learned. They haven’t.
The Trust are still using this site as a propaganda tool, victimising fans of the club that hold opinions it doesn’t like, often banning and silencing them. Let’s remember, they shouldn’t be in the position to not like any fan stance, they shouldn’t have an ideology at all, they are there to act on fan wishes, not ensure fans act on Trust wishes.
They are still lying about important Trust matters and still covering it up. Exactly the same as what went on before.
I touched upon foresight in an earlier post. I highlighted a long time ago how the only way this club can be safe from unscrupulous owners is to adopt a fan run model. The only way to achieve that, it through the Trust. I am a huge Trust advocate and think they are vital to the future of the club I have supported for a quarter of a century...
do I want the Trust in its current guise to be leading that charge in the way they continually abuse their position, disrespect the fan and treat the premise behind the organisation with disdain? Absolutely not. [Post edited 22 Feb 2019 22:38]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 22:41 - Feb 22 with 5266 views | Darran |
| Conflict of interest on 22:27 - Feb 22 by NeathJack |
Good, as was I.
Do you think that going over and over old ground when the Trust board make up has changed considerably since that time, and is now progressing towards legal action with a vote scheduled for next month, is beneficial to achieving this aim? |
Paul do us all a favour and don’t reply to the trolling cùnt again. | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 22:49 - Feb 22 with 5251 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 22:41 - Feb 22 by Darran |
Paul do us all a favour and don’t reply to the trolling cùnt again. |
Which part is trolling?
You are unable to respond to the points I’m making because we both know they are undeniable.
Ironic we have now had a board member and a mate of the chairman both come on and try and dictate to fans who they should talk to and about what. A thread which had already been deleted once by the chairman. You couldn’t write this stuff. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 22:52 - Feb 22 with 5246 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Conflict of interest on 22:22 - Feb 22 by The_E20 |
Absolutely, they should have 2 years ago when I was telling them to. |
There was no one more vociferously against the ‘deal’ 18 months ago than I was E20. Have a look back at the threads of the time, I spent half of my life arguing against it on here.
So to think that people against that deal aren’t welcomed by the Trust is simply incorrect. Repeating it doesn’t make it correct. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 22:57 - Feb 22 with 5233 views | NeathJack |
| Conflict of interest on 22:36 - Feb 22 by The_E20 |
It isn’t going over old ground, it is very much current ground.
I openly said I would be willing to give this new reformed (semi reformed) Trust a fair chance before passing judgement in the hope previous lessons have been learned. They haven’t.
The Trust are still using this site as a propaganda tool, victimising fans of the club that hold opinions it doesn’t like, often banning and silencing them. Let’s remember, they shouldn’t be in the position to not like any fan stance, they shouldn’t have an ideology at all, they are there to act on fan wishes, not ensure fans act on Trust wishes.
They are still lying about important Trust matters and still covering it up. Exactly the same as what went on before.
I touched upon foresight in an earlier post. I highlighted a long time ago how the only way this club can be safe from unscrupulous owners is to adopt a fan run model. The only way to achieve that, it through the Trust. I am a huge Trust advocate and think they are vital to the future of the club I have supported for a quarter of a century...
do I want the Trust in its current guise to be leading that charge in the way they continually abuse their position, disrespect the fan and treat the premise behind the organisation with disdain? Absolutely not. [Post edited 22 Feb 2019 22:38]
|
So you think chastising the new Trust board who are clearly heading towards the legal recourse you believe in is beneficial to the Trust being successful in getting the membership to vote in favour of said action? | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 23:06 - Feb 22 with 5215 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 22:52 - Feb 22 by londonlisa2001 |
There was no one more vociferously against the ‘deal’ 18 months ago than I was E20. Have a look back at the threads of the time, I spent half of my life arguing against it on here.
So to think that people against that deal aren’t welcomed by the Trust is simply incorrect. Repeating it doesn’t make it correct. |
I didn’t say people against the deal, I said people against Trust aims. Currently that would be people who aren’t against the club board, so you are safe on this one.
Plenty of people were silenced around the time of the deal however, you were not one of them - granted, can you imagine the backlash? They victimise people they think they can get away with. Not sure how that can be argued really. Ask Spratty, I’m pretty sure the chairman lied to her and her husbands face when asked about the silencing of her. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 23:12 - Feb 22 with 5202 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 22:57 - Feb 22 by NeathJack |
So you think chastising the new Trust board who are clearly heading towards the legal recourse you believe in is beneficial to the Trust being successful in getting the membership to vote in favour of said action? |
They shouldn’t be “getting the fanbase to vote in favour” of anything. This is the fundamental problem.
Any Trust board worth it’s salt should be moving toward legal action, this lot have done it kicking and screaming. I believe the Trust will end up in court whether they comply with their duties or not.
My point is the fans deserve a board that acts fairly and in their interests to lead the legal challenge and subsequent ownership charge down the line. If we are to base our arguments on the lying and underhand tactics of the old club board - then how in Gods name can we accept the same thing from the Trust board? The fact they can do as they like and then be seen as beyond reproach is terrifying. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 23:16 - Feb 22 with 5190 views | NeathJack |
| Conflict of interest on 23:12 - Feb 22 by The_E20 |
They shouldn’t be “getting the fanbase to vote in favour” of anything. This is the fundamental problem.
Any Trust board worth it’s salt should be moving toward legal action, this lot have done it kicking and screaming. I believe the Trust will end up in court whether they comply with their duties or not.
My point is the fans deserve a board that acts fairly and in their interests to lead the legal challenge and subsequent ownership charge down the line. If we are to base our arguments on the lying and underhand tactics of the old club board - then how in Gods name can we accept the same thing from the Trust board? The fact they can do as they like and then be seen as beyond reproach is terrifying. |
I'm sure that was the answer to some question, just not the one I asked.
Anyway, I'm done for the evening. Have a nice evening, morning or afternoon depending on where your imagination has you right now, Roathy. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 23:20 - Feb 22 with 5178 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 23:16 - Feb 22 by NeathJack |
I'm sure that was the answer to some question, just not the one I asked.
Anyway, I'm done for the evening. Have a nice evening, morning or afternoon depending on where your imagination has you right now, Roathy. |
You asked me if I felt reprimanding them for their behaviour is helpful to the legal push.
I said they will end up in court regardless of whether they act appropriately or not, so ensuring they do does not affect it. I also corrected your point that you felt the Trust should be trying to get their membership to vote a certain way.
As for your last paragraph, it’s just desperate nonsense of someone that has no answers and is walking off with the tail between his legs. (It’s morning). | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 23:24 - Feb 22 with 5165 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Conflict of interest on 23:06 - Feb 22 by The_E20 |
I didn’t say people against the deal, I said people against Trust aims. Currently that would be people who aren’t against the club board, so you are safe on this one.
Plenty of people were silenced around the time of the deal however, you were not one of them - granted, can you imagine the backlash? They victimise people they think they can get away with. Not sure how that can be argued really. Ask Spratty, I’m pretty sure the chairman lied to her and her husbands face when asked about the silencing of her. |
I’m not sure why any fan would be against Trust aims if you read them. They were posted above.
Keeping a football team in Swansea and attempting to ensure supporters have as strong a say as possible in the way the club is run to aim to prevent the club ever again coming close to extinction seems something that any fan would support as far as I can see. There may be disagreements as to tactics or the ways of achieving that, but if people are fundamentally against Trust aims then they are strange fans,
As for the ‘they silenced some who were against the deal but not me, because I was vociferously against it’ - yeah, that’s just nonsense when you think about it, isn’t it. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
