| The future of SCFC 09:32 - Nov 11 with 42339 views | _ |
Can we start a thread to get some structure at the meeting night before West Ham. I'm not going to the game and won't be in the country that weekend and I've also heard the Q&A session can be a bit ad hoc let's say. Dav and ARQS have asked some serious questions.
Do you think it's possible for the ones going to go in ready with structured questions?
I wouldn't necessarily want these questions on a public forum but I'm sure anyone that wants something answered can get their questions to the Trust people or the ones attending that night.
That would only take just a little organising and a panel could decide the best say 10 questions to take to Leigh and Huw. I'm sure someone at the event could also set up a video link or at least record it? [Post edited 13 Dec 2014 15:26]
|  |
| |  |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:45 - Dec 12 with 1723 views | Shaky |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:31 - Dec 12 by Witneyjack |
Of course you are allowed to ask questions. But get involved in the Trust and fight your fight from within.
We both know your response to me above was both facetious and patronising. You need to realise that others aren't wrong because they have a different viewpoint to you.
As Gandhi once said " It's the action not the fruits of the action that's important."
Less rhetoric, more action. |
That point has now been made to death.
Equally the issue of whether new shares of existing shares were to be sold to the American investors was done to death several weeks ago, to the point where everyman and his dog understood the significance. Even St Dav was able to pen a 1,200 word tautological essay on the subject.
The really interesting question is what caused the collective minds of the people attending the London Forum to suddenly go collectively blank on that score? I would expect even somebody I regularly refer to as noclue to have sufficient nous to enquire about this.
Based on the reports I have heard I think the issue is the mood of the meeting. It strikes me there was a mood of "we're all in this kind of thing together" and what a bunch of good blokes we all are. A most tangible esprit de corps, if you will.
In my view it is the same feeling that permeates the thinking of the Trust with respect to the corporate governance issues under discussion, but in a much more dangerous manifestation; we're all such f*cking good blokes there is no need for this ted rape, after all our word is as good as our bond.
And that level of blase self belief and mutual backslapping is a recipe for disaster. |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:52 - Dec 12 with 1708 views | tomdickharry |
Away from the pointless bickering ,I posted yesterday about the lack of inf.coming from Club re (1)Stadium Expansion (2)Key Senior appointments at club,ie Head of Commercial Dept,there has been a stoney silence in respect of positive comment from the corridors of power,will now add a third question
What is the latest situation re the horrendous LED A/D's ? facing the East Stand ? Does the Trust know? |  | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:55 - Dec 12 with 1696 views | _ |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:45 - Dec 12 by Shaky |
That point has now been made to death.
Equally the issue of whether new shares of existing shares were to be sold to the American investors was done to death several weeks ago, to the point where everyman and his dog understood the significance. Even St Dav was able to pen a 1,200 word tautological essay on the subject.
The really interesting question is what caused the collective minds of the people attending the London Forum to suddenly go collectively blank on that score? I would expect even somebody I regularly refer to as noclue to have sufficient nous to enquire about this.
Based on the reports I have heard I think the issue is the mood of the meeting. It strikes me there was a mood of "we're all in this kind of thing together" and what a bunch of good blokes we all are. A most tangible esprit de corps, if you will.
In my view it is the same feeling that permeates the thinking of the Trust with respect to the corporate governance issues under discussion, but in a much more dangerous manifestation; we're all such f*cking good blokes there is no need for this ted rape, after all our word is as good as our bond.
And that level of blase self belief and mutual backslapping is a recipe for disaster. |
I could never have put it as well as that but I agree with that word for word.
I was having regular conversations with a now Trust board member around 8 years ago who was as passionate as hell about the club and the Trust and what was going on at the time.
He was keeping a very close eye on whether any new or existing shares should be bought some 4/5 years after the original issue and at what cost!!
What happened after changed everything for me. Like Shaky says.... "we're all in this kind of thing together" and what a bunch of good blokes we all are. A most tangible esprit de corps, if you will.... | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:55 - Dec 12 with 1691 views | skippyjack |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:52 - Dec 12 by tomdickharry |
Away from the pointless bickering ,I posted yesterday about the lack of inf.coming from Club re (1)Stadium Expansion (2)Key Senior appointments at club,ie Head of Commercial Dept,there has been a stoney silence in respect of positive comment from the corridors of power,will now add a third question
What is the latest situation re the horrendous LED A/D's ? facing the East Stand ? Does the Trust know? |
Has anybody actually read my post? Anybody? |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:06 - Dec 12 with 1655 views | Witneyjack |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:40 - Dec 12 by _ |
As I've said, I am being serious.
For too long fans have come on here in particular fed up to the high teeth of some of the actions and decisions the club board make.
Very little, if anything gets done about it and even less communicated. You don't like me so your opinion is cloudy in this matter. I can't do anything about that. I can't make you like me or even want you to, but the points raised in the two threads are valid.
The Trust needs a shake up, it's just been like a little private members club for too long.
Fan's Liaison officer. |
" You don't like me "? Really? Evidence please? I don't know you. That's just an excuse for you to ignore the points I raised. I'm disappointed really as you claim to love a good debate. Clearly it is only on points you can answer properly..... |  | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:10 - Dec 12 with 1642 views | Millie |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:02 - Dec 12 by _ |
I'd be facking furious if it's him mate.
How long since Moscowjack, Westx and Mille last posted until today? |
Hiya | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:10 - Dec 12 with 1642 views | Millie |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:20 - Dec 12 by _ |
That's facking disgusting and very dangerous.
Talk about no facking balls. All of these lately having a pop at me are faceless cowards.
I'm asking the questions - what's wrong with that?? |
Your a coward too | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:28 - Dec 12 with 1607 views | jackonicko |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:45 - Dec 12 by Shaky |
That point has now been made to death.
Equally the issue of whether new shares of existing shares were to be sold to the American investors was done to death several weeks ago, to the point where everyman and his dog understood the significance. Even St Dav was able to pen a 1,200 word tautological essay on the subject.
The really interesting question is what caused the collective minds of the people attending the London Forum to suddenly go collectively blank on that score? I would expect even somebody I regularly refer to as noclue to have sufficient nous to enquire about this.
Based on the reports I have heard I think the issue is the mood of the meeting. It strikes me there was a mood of "we're all in this kind of thing together" and what a bunch of good blokes we all are. A most tangible esprit de corps, if you will.
In my view it is the same feeling that permeates the thinking of the Trust with respect to the corporate governance issues under discussion, but in a much more dangerous manifestation; we're all such f*cking good blokes there is no need for this ted rape, after all our word is as good as our bond.
And that level of blase self belief and mutual backslapping is a recipe for disaster. |
I didn't realise you needed someone to join the dots for you.
Yes it was done to death weeks ago. The premise for that debate was whether it was existing or new shares. The premise was the 'range of options being considered'.
What we learnt Saturday was critical. It is for existing shares. It is the only game in town. The question you now pose as a glaring omission is in fact so glaringly obvious that there was no point asking it. No new shares. No equity investment. You may as well ask 'is the sky blue' for all the value it adds.
So, the next option is loan investment. HJ also made his position clear on that. Answers already documented. Do I need to join the dots for you there as well?
The nuance will come down to the final structure of the deal which is a) not done yet and b) subject to NDA. It then comes down to future actions post first acquisition, and how that can be managed - and an important question about that was asked and answered too.
If you read what has been posted, you would know your question is redundant. It's self evident. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:29 - Dec 12 with 1603 views | Witneyjack |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:45 - Dec 12 by Shaky |
That point has now been made to death.
Equally the issue of whether new shares of existing shares were to be sold to the American investors was done to death several weeks ago, to the point where everyman and his dog understood the significance. Even St Dav was able to pen a 1,200 word tautological essay on the subject.
The really interesting question is what caused the collective minds of the people attending the London Forum to suddenly go collectively blank on that score? I would expect even somebody I regularly refer to as noclue to have sufficient nous to enquire about this.
Based on the reports I have heard I think the issue is the mood of the meeting. It strikes me there was a mood of "we're all in this kind of thing together" and what a bunch of good blokes we all are. A most tangible esprit de corps, if you will.
In my view it is the same feeling that permeates the thinking of the Trust with respect to the corporate governance issues under discussion, but in a much more dangerous manifestation; we're all such f*cking good blokes there is no need for this ted rape, after all our word is as good as our bond.
And that level of blase self belief and mutual backslapping is a recipe for disaster. |
Done to death? Yet you still keep asking questions and criticising others on an internet forum instead of the club via the correct means.
Clearly there is no reasoning with you or T2C on this. I have made a legitimate point and it is met with patronising rhetoric!
The means to get answers to your questions and get change is available to you. Clearly you don't have the courage of your convictions to do so, so how you can expect to get people to take you seriously, I don't know.
As I won't get a reasoned answer I'll leave it at that although I would like to hear how T2C knows I don't like him. I think I might have a long wait....... | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:48 - Dec 12 with 1558 views | Phil_S |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 11:53 - Dec 12 by _ |
A question for you Le Braveheart....
Do you think I'd get the answers we all want? |
if you went and asked the question then yes you would get an answer
Whether it is the answer you want I guess depends on the question being asked.
The only way though sadly for you to find out is to actually go and try.
Calling things a sham because nobody asked the questions you would have asked though is quite amusing |  | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:06 - Dec 12 with 1518 views | jackonicko |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 11:44 - Dec 12 by snork44 |
The first word was 'If' , now I am not naive enough to think that the Americans would not have an agenda! I live in the States and know that corporate America would sell their Aunt Ethel for glue as long as they got a profit! But it has been reiterated time and time again that Huw in the meeting was upfront and very candid. Phil Sumbler has said there was no agenda at the meeting, Ux and Jackino who were at the meeting were happy with answers. Yet t2c who wasn't even there has interpreted the responses as some sort of conspiracy that would put the Warren commission to shame! I am all for asking questions especially when corporate America is involved just look at the mess at Liverpool or the inertia under Lerner at Villa. But when paranoid trolls like t2c come along then the sticky brown stuff hit the fan on here. |
Just to be clear on one point.
I was happy with the fact we got answers to the questions asked. I was less happy with some of the answers that were given! | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:09 - Dec 12 with 1505 views | WarwickHunt |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 02:49 - Dec 12 by snork44 |
If a major investor with no agenda came forward t2c would still have an objection. He has a warped agenda that is all that is wrong with agenda lead trolls on this board that wishes failure on Monk, the club and the board, just to say 'I told you so! ' like a spoilt six year old girl ! Idiots like him are what is wrong with this forum at the moment. |
Semi-literate f*ckwits like you are what's wrong with this board at the moment. |  | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:09 - Dec 12 with 1505 views | Uxbridge |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:06 - Dec 12 by jackonicko |
Just to be clear on one point.
I was happy with the fact we got answers to the questions asked. I was less happy with some of the answers that were given! |
Well, I was happy enough with HJ's answers. 
Is this thread still going? Blimey. |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:30 - Dec 12 with 1448 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:09 - Dec 12 by Uxbridge |
Well, I was happy enough with HJ's answers.
Is this thread still going? Blimey. |
your point is the one that I have been thinking for a while. The fact that you use HJ there speaks volumes does it not? | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:38 - Dec 12 with 1431 views | Uxbridge |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:30 - Dec 12 by londonlisa2001 |
your point is the one that I have been thinking for a while. The fact that you use HJ there speaks volumes does it not? |
Well, LD impressed me by turning up. His answers less so in comparison to HJ but hey ho. To be honest, as Jacko said earlier, the commercial aspects of the club were largely bypassed during the meeting due to the focus on the share sale. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:39 - Dec 12 with 1426 views | Shaky |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:28 - Dec 12 by jackonicko |
I didn't realise you needed someone to join the dots for you.
Yes it was done to death weeks ago. The premise for that debate was whether it was existing or new shares. The premise was the 'range of options being considered'.
What we learnt Saturday was critical. It is for existing shares. It is the only game in town. The question you now pose as a glaring omission is in fact so glaringly obvious that there was no point asking it. No new shares. No equity investment. You may as well ask 'is the sky blue' for all the value it adds.
So, the next option is loan investment. HJ also made his position clear on that. Answers already documented. Do I need to join the dots for you there as well?
The nuance will come down to the final structure of the deal which is a) not done yet and b) subject to NDA. It then comes down to future actions post first acquisition, and how that can be managed - and an important question about that was asked and answered too.
If you read what has been posted, you would know your question is redundant. It's self evident. |
So to summarise your clear inference, there are no plans or prospects for raising either debt or equity financing, despite the fact Jenkins has repeatedly said that is critical to the future of the club.
The obvious question then is to ask him to resign, given he has no strategy. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:41 - Dec 12 with 1423 views | Shaky |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:30 - Dec 12 by londonlisa2001 |
your point is the one that I have been thinking for a while. The fact that you use HJ there speaks volumes does it not? |
WTF does that mean, Lisa?
If you have something to say spit it out in plain language. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:42 - Dec 12 with 1421 views | Ponderosa |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:30 - Dec 12 by londonlisa2001 |
your point is the one that I have been thinking for a while. The fact that you use HJ there speaks volumes does it not? |
So, initials eh?
Sinister |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:44 - Dec 12 with 1416 views | Shaky |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:42 - Dec 12 by Ponderosa |
So, initials eh?
Sinister |
Indeed. Sinister gobbledygook. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:49 - Dec 12 with 1399 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:41 - Dec 12 by Shaky |
WTF does that mean, Lisa?
If you have something to say spit it out in plain language. |
oh sorry. I meant that I have thought for a while that Huw Jenkins is not the problem so much as Leigh Dineen and some of the other board members.
I was asking Uxbridge if, therefore, his saying that he was happy with the answers of Huw (as opposed to the 'Board') was deliberate, since there has been a suggestion that Huw and Leigh did not appear to speak as one voice during the event. | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:51 - Dec 12 with 1393 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:44 - Dec 12 by Shaky |
Indeed. Sinister gobbledygook. |
don't be so blooming ridiculous - I was referring to whether the use of 'Huw' rather than the Board was deliberate given that there were 2 of them there, not the use of initials :-) | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:51 - Dec 12 with 1390 views | skippyjack |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:09 - Dec 12 by WarwickHunt |
Semi-literate f*ckwits like you are what's wrong with this board at the moment. |
Oi!.. I'm here for a very peculiar reason.. to spot the flaws of the literate.. I've noticed the literate can write but not read... and the semi-literate can read but not write.. I've noticed the literate have an arrogant authority over the semi-literate.. mostly without any structural point with their argument or in this board's case.. an 'agenda'.. there is nothing worse than a literate person talking utter bollocks.. then try to cover it up when clearly wrong.. T2C is concerned with the club's silence.. Huw believes the shareholders will sell their shares.. but they're not staying silent on purpose.. they're staying silent because this 'potential' takeover could have an effect on 500,000 lives in the South West Wales region.. and this decision isn't solely down to the club.. they've got to consider what this means for the Economy as a whole.. especially if we've gained global marketing.. this isn't 'little business' anymore or agendas.. it's an important decision.. which I think our board is struggling with.. now if a jobless, unskilled tit can see the implications this 'potential' takeover can have.. surely you literate and superior entities can clearly see what is happening. | |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:52 - Dec 12 with 1385 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:38 - Dec 12 by Uxbridge |
Well, LD impressed me by turning up. His answers less so in comparison to HJ but hey ho. To be honest, as Jacko said earlier, the commercial aspects of the club were largely bypassed during the meeting due to the focus on the share sale. |
not sure that there was much option given the fuss that was made over that very point on here some weeks ago. | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:55 - Dec 12 with 1374 views | Uxbridge |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:52 - Dec 12 by londonlisa2001 |
not sure that there was much option given the fuss that was made over that very point on here some weeks ago. |
Well, it would have looked bad. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:57 - Dec 12 with 1365 views | Uxbridge |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:49 - Dec 12 by londonlisa2001 |
oh sorry. I meant that I have thought for a while that Huw Jenkins is not the problem so much as Leigh Dineen and some of the other board members.
I was asking Uxbridge if, therefore, his saying that he was happy with the answers of Huw (as opposed to the 'Board') was deliberate, since there has been a suggestion that Huw and Leigh did not appear to speak as one voice during the event. |
Well they openly disagreed on some issues, such as ticket prices, so there was certainly no united front. To be honest I can't really remember LD's comments on the last question regarding Trust protection, but HJ was quite explicit in that he would only sell if such protections were in place as he saw the Trust having a strong place for generations to come. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
