| Swans Trust Meeting 19:37 - Dec 4 with 19968 views | Landore_Jack |
Don't forget there is a trust meeting tomorrow at 7:30 pm at the Liberty Stadium. |  |
| |  |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:11 - Dec 5 with 1890 views | PURe_Evil |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:10 - Dec 5 by thenorthbankbog |
From what I'm reading there's nothing new to report what an absolute joke |
They just keep playing the victims. |  | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:12 - Dec 5 with 1888 views | barry_island |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:01 - Dec 5 by Nookiejack |
The press statements suggest early August. If these transfers had occurred 2 weeks earlier then you would assume club would have made a profit.
Also how much has the TV money gone up this year?
How much has left the club so far in performance fees that the Yank's have paid themselves using 75% voting control.
How much is Pearlman being paid when we are paying Jenkins minimum £500k a year? |
Zero investigative reporting from our local media can't be helping the Trust. |  |
| Swansea City, THE Austerity Club. |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:12 - Dec 5 with 1883 views | Nookiejack |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 22:19 - Dec 5 by barry_island |
In fairness Phil said management accounts for the period Aug to Oct were only made available to the Trust last Friday. |
Thanks for confirming- this really is not an indicator.
If club becomes relegated and goes into a tailspin - money can go offshore (performance fees etc) to Delaware company (Offsore bank account) but Trust wont find about it for least 4 months when receives next Management Accounts?
Talk about losing £900k in legal fees can easily lose £23m by not protecting value of shares. Spend £1m to protect £23m must be the correct decision. | | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:14 - Dec 5 with 1868 views | blueytheblue |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:12 - Dec 5 by Nookiejack |
Thanks for confirming- this really is not an indicator.
If club becomes relegated and goes into a tailspin - money can go offshore (performance fees etc) to Delaware company (Offsore bank account) but Trust wont find about it for least 4 months when receives next Management Accounts?
Talk about losing £900k in legal fees can easily lose £23m by not protecting value of shares. Spend £1m to protect £23m must be the correct decision. |
Spending 1m to protect 23m is only the correct decision if you're 100 per cent sure you win.
Lose and it's a loss of 1m and more importantly time and press coverage. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:18 - Dec 5 with 1855 views | barry_island |
I have no doubt our investors know how and when to strip them there assets in whatever form they appear. | |
| Swansea City, THE Austerity Club. |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:22 - Dec 5 with 1828 views | Nookiejack |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:14 - Dec 5 by blueytheblue |
Spending 1m to protect 23m is only the correct decision if you're 100 per cent sure you win.
Lose and it's a loss of 1m and more importantly time and press coverage. |
You can an never be 100% sure of winning in court. There is always the chance of losing. The balance of probabilities are in the Trust's favour.
Where has the rhetoric of the 100% all of a sudden come from in a number of posts?
If you take that attitude you just sit on your backside and let life go passed you. £23m down the drain. No chance of ever being a fans owned club? Where's the vision? Happy to have a few seats in the Directors box? | | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:24 - Dec 5 with 1820 views | airedale |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:18 - Dec 5 by barry_island |
I have no doubt our investors know how and when to strip them there assets in whatever form they appear. |
They're not our investors, they invest on their own behalf. They own 68% of a business in Swansea. |  | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:29 - Dec 5 with 1807 views | barry_island |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:24 - Dec 5 by airedale |
They're not our investors, they invest on their own behalf. They own 68% of a business in Swansea. |
Sorry the word investors should have been in inverted commas. To date they have done nothing good for our club only for a select few. | |
| Swansea City, THE Austerity Club. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swans Trust Meeting on 00:06 - Dec 6 with 1727 views | cimlajack |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:24 - Dec 5 by airedale |
They're not our investors, they invest on their own behalf. They own 68% of a business in Swansea. |
Make that , they own 68% of a business in Swansea,but have 100% control due to self enrichment from former owners who conspired to make the ordinary fans shares worthless. | | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 00:16 - Dec 6 with 1704 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:05 - Dec 5 by PURe_Evil |
20:40 Q) Are coordinated and respectful fan protests an option?
"It is a difficult one. Widely speaking we don’t know how much people are fully aware of what has happened."
Are you f*cking kidding me? It should be their mission to make everyone aware. This is turning into a bad joke.
I'm sure I read that they bumped into Kaplan and the other w*nker 10 days before the sale??? So they knew who they were then? |
Did they really say that?
How f*cking hard is it to print off 10,000 leaflets, a few hundred posters and hand them out on matchdays and ask local businesses to put them in the window? And don't give the excuse that you don't want to damage a potential working relationship as the American's have REPEATEDLY made you look like a bunch of idiots already this season by not involving you in club matters.
The reason not many people know what has happened is because The Trust have done absolutely nothing to aware the supporters who don't read these forums.
Absolutely useless. I currently wish I never signed up. I hope they do something to make me think otherwise soon. |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 03:10 - Dec 6 with 1589 views | Loyal |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 00:16 - Dec 6 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
Did they really say that?
How f*cking hard is it to print off 10,000 leaflets, a few hundred posters and hand them out on matchdays and ask local businesses to put them in the window? And don't give the excuse that you don't want to damage a potential working relationship as the American's have REPEATEDLY made you look like a bunch of idiots already this season by not involving you in club matters.
The reason not many people know what has happened is because The Trust have done absolutely nothing to aware the supporters who don't read these forums.
Absolutely useless. I currently wish I never signed up. I hope they do something to make me think otherwise soon. |
And this is the truth folks, like it or lump it these apples are in season. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 03:28 - Dec 6 with 1572 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 03:10 - Dec 6 by Loyal |
And this is the truth folks, like it or lump it these apples are in season. |
Get Huw Cooze to print them with that special discount we were told he apparently gave the club. I doubt he will though as he appears to be very friendly with them. I'd be interested in knowing what company Morgan and Dineen use when they need to print off catalogues or menus.
I see Cooze's dilemma though. Perhaps Mr Morgan wont continue to invite him to his parties in the hotel with the other former shareholders if he did anything against their interests.
What an absolute sh*t show this is. I rarely swear but this situation infuriates me. [Post edited 6 Dec 2016 3:31]
| |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 06:58 - Dec 6 with 1477 views | Gowerjack |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 22:08 - Dec 5 by barry_island |
Phil speaks very well and answered all of the questions fired at him.
I didn't get the impression that any legal action is inevitable.
I will keep my own counsel on what I think our Supporter Director may or may not have known throughout the whole sale and whether that has weakened the trust position considerably. |
There it is in a nutshell. |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 07:07 - Dec 6 with 1456 views | AngelRangelQS |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 06:58 - Dec 6 by Gowerjack |
There it is in a nutshell. |
This has been in the back of my mind too. |  | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 07:40 - Dec 6 with 1398 views | waynekerr55 |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 22:14 - Dec 5 by NOTRAC |
His advice was not to sell under any circumstances. He did not relate that advice purely to Moores and Noell.
The fact that he was and has continued to be a co opted Trust member, must have played a large part in the Trusts attitude to the sale of shares.
In the circumstances it is ridiculous that he has been the person the Trust has used to look at legal action .There is possibility that perhaps the Trust should have been looking at suing him and his firm for bad advise. |
And where is the evidence of this claim.
All I can find is a statement on his law firms site saying he advised against the first sale |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 07:43 - Dec 6 with 1388 views | waynekerr55 |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 22:27 - Dec 5 by swancity |
Why are you trying to defend Little? And his apparent useless advice previously received. |
Because from what I gather he's a decent lawyer and a decent man. Also, it's my understanding that he didn't say no sale, it was just to the first sellers. He didn't even get the chance to look at the cowboys we have now.
Fúck my eyes there's so many fûcking experts on here who can't even spell law never mind understand it.
If people are so fûcking clever, give up your time and help the trust. If we have any magic circle lawyers here, tender your services. Anything, other than chatting spurious shìt with no substance. [Post edited 6 Dec 2016 7:45]
| |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 07:54 - Dec 6 with 1361 views | costalotta |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:05 - Dec 5 by Swanseajill |
That's correct Watch.
The Trust has changed barristers, they need to get an idea of the outcome of a court case. Its possible that the old board, and the new one could get away with a reprimand....and the Trust will be skint after the verdict due to court costs.
They need to be sure, in fact, very sure, before going down this road. |
There is no such thing as certainty, only prediction and that depends on the quality of information.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle!
Not the breaking bad guy. |  | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 08:34 - Dec 6 with 1263 views | monmouth |
I think DYSS is smack bang on the money here. Trust needs to go to PR war and prove it has nothing sinister to hide.
It doesn't have to damage any relationships as it is the old scum that would be targeted as they claimed 'investment', 'next level' and all that shit and need to be publicly called out. There are already no relationships there. Trust statements and narrowly focused social media are not going to do that for 80% of fans.
I liked the line earlier that their cowardly and greedy actions to enrich themselves have deliberately made ordinary fans' shares worthless.
If there is no legal threat there needs to be reputational pressure, or there is nothing, and we might as well pack up and go home. |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 08:39 - Dec 6 with 1250 views | costalotta |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 00:16 - Dec 6 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
Did they really say that?
How f*cking hard is it to print off 10,000 leaflets, a few hundred posters and hand them out on matchdays and ask local businesses to put them in the window? And don't give the excuse that you don't want to damage a potential working relationship as the American's have REPEATEDLY made you look like a bunch of idiots already this season by not involving you in club matters.
The reason not many people know what has happened is because The Trust have done absolutely nothing to aware the supporters who don't read these forums.
Absolutely useless. I currently wish I never signed up. I hope they do something to make me think otherwise soon. |
Spot 'f cking' on!
Wasting opportunity after opportunity and then the repeated making of empty statements after empty statements. Then there is the covering up and lies and a board utterly devoid of fighting spirit and leadership qualities.
Sadly, Its all too predictable... | | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 08:49 - Dec 6 with 1217 views | tylagarwjack |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 08:34 - Dec 6 by monmouth |
I think DYSS is smack bang on the money here. Trust needs to go to PR war and prove it has nothing sinister to hide.
It doesn't have to damage any relationships as it is the old scum that would be targeted as they claimed 'investment', 'next level' and all that shit and need to be publicly called out. There are already no relationships there. Trust statements and narrowly focused social media are not going to do that for 80% of fans.
I liked the line earlier that their cowardly and greedy actions to enrich themselves have deliberately made ordinary fans' shares worthless.
If there is no legal threat there needs to be reputational pressure, or there is nothing, and we might as well pack up and go home. |
I think there needs to be a clear focus on said PR campaign as to questioning how the club is being run from a footballing perspective. The intentions of the new owners are still unknown, both in terms of getting back in place a footballing philosophy but also in terms of spending money on new players, and getting the structure right so that we have a chance of getting more transfers right than wrong. This is desperately needed, as has as been often said, decision making and selection and recruitment of players and managers has been shocking recently.
These are the real issues, which, if they don't get right, could easily see us slide back down through the leagues.
Whether Leigh Dineen is on the board or not, or whether certain ex directors still sit in the directors box or receive any other perks, apart from an example of the trust not being consulted, and causing animosity from fans, is semantics in comparison. | | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:00 - Dec 6 with 1181 views | Pegojack |
I went to the meeting last night.
The first thing I want to say is thank you to the Trust Board who ran the AGM last night for a very informative event. I understand a lot more now than I did before. I also want to thank those guys and their colleagues for giving up their free time unstintingly on behalf of Swansea City fans and club. It is greatly appreciated, and the meeting said so as one last night by a vote of thanks.
The next thing I want to say is that I'm disgusted by the tone of this thread and the ill-informed opinions trotted out by the usual keyboard warriors whose only ability is to carp from the sidelines and do nothing practical.
The main thing I learned last night, and I guess those demanding legal action aren't aware of, is that actual basis on which that would have to proceed.
What we are talking about is the Articles of Association originally signed up to in 2002 by the original shareholders, i.e. the sellouts, and the Supporters Trust. What that says is that no shareholder has the right to sell his/her shares to one party without offering them equally to the other shareholders. That's all it said, and it was originally intended to stop one of the existing shareholders buying out other people and getting a controlling stake. We are talking here about a certain hotel owner.
What Phil pointed out about the sale to the Americans, and what most of you seem to be ignoring, is that the Supporters Trust didn't have the funds to buy any meaningful amount of those shares even if the Articles of Association were abided by, and the shares were offered to us. Probably not more than about 1%. Do you realize that this fact could seriously weaken our case in a court of law in terms of compensation or redress? Think about it before you spout off. Yes, we could have sought outside financial backing to buy 'on our behalf', but how practical would that have been? That would just be swapping one outside owner for another. So I understand the cautious approach of the Trust in committing our war chest of approx. £850k to a legal action which is not black and white, no pun intended.
The fact is, we have been stitched up and sold down the river by a bunch of guys who proclaimed themselves Jacks to the core, but have turned out to be a bunch of greedy barst*rds. There is no easy way to get back at them, and no quick way to win back control of our club, but the Trust is doing their best and proceeding with caution and intelligence. If you need to lash out, I suggest you attack those responsible, not those who are opposing them on our behalf. |  | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:06 - Dec 6 with 1155 views | costalotta |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:00 - Dec 6 by Pegojack |
I went to the meeting last night.
The first thing I want to say is thank you to the Trust Board who ran the AGM last night for a very informative event. I understand a lot more now than I did before. I also want to thank those guys and their colleagues for giving up their free time unstintingly on behalf of Swansea City fans and club. It is greatly appreciated, and the meeting said so as one last night by a vote of thanks.
The next thing I want to say is that I'm disgusted by the tone of this thread and the ill-informed opinions trotted out by the usual keyboard warriors whose only ability is to carp from the sidelines and do nothing practical.
The main thing I learned last night, and I guess those demanding legal action aren't aware of, is that actual basis on which that would have to proceed.
What we are talking about is the Articles of Association originally signed up to in 2002 by the original shareholders, i.e. the sellouts, and the Supporters Trust. What that says is that no shareholder has the right to sell his/her shares to one party without offering them equally to the other shareholders. That's all it said, and it was originally intended to stop one of the existing shareholders buying out other people and getting a controlling stake. We are talking here about a certain hotel owner.
What Phil pointed out about the sale to the Americans, and what most of you seem to be ignoring, is that the Supporters Trust didn't have the funds to buy any meaningful amount of those shares even if the Articles of Association were abided by, and the shares were offered to us. Probably not more than about 1%. Do you realize that this fact could seriously weaken our case in a court of law in terms of compensation or redress? Think about it before you spout off. Yes, we could have sought outside financial backing to buy 'on our behalf', but how practical would that have been? That would just be swapping one outside owner for another. So I understand the cautious approach of the Trust in committing our war chest of approx. £850k to a legal action which is not black and white, no pun intended.
The fact is, we have been stitched up and sold down the river by a bunch of guys who proclaimed themselves Jacks to the core, but have turned out to be a bunch of greedy barst*rds. There is no easy way to get back at them, and no quick way to win back control of our club, but the Trust is doing their best and proceeding with caution and intelligence. If you need to lash out, I suggest you attack those responsible, not those who are opposing them on our behalf. |
Yes, we know this.
Anything else? | | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:07 - Dec 6 with 1149 views | waynekerr55 |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:00 - Dec 6 by Pegojack |
I went to the meeting last night.
The first thing I want to say is thank you to the Trust Board who ran the AGM last night for a very informative event. I understand a lot more now than I did before. I also want to thank those guys and their colleagues for giving up their free time unstintingly on behalf of Swansea City fans and club. It is greatly appreciated, and the meeting said so as one last night by a vote of thanks.
The next thing I want to say is that I'm disgusted by the tone of this thread and the ill-informed opinions trotted out by the usual keyboard warriors whose only ability is to carp from the sidelines and do nothing practical.
The main thing I learned last night, and I guess those demanding legal action aren't aware of, is that actual basis on which that would have to proceed.
What we are talking about is the Articles of Association originally signed up to in 2002 by the original shareholders, i.e. the sellouts, and the Supporters Trust. What that says is that no shareholder has the right to sell his/her shares to one party without offering them equally to the other shareholders. That's all it said, and it was originally intended to stop one of the existing shareholders buying out other people and getting a controlling stake. We are talking here about a certain hotel owner.
What Phil pointed out about the sale to the Americans, and what most of you seem to be ignoring, is that the Supporters Trust didn't have the funds to buy any meaningful amount of those shares even if the Articles of Association were abided by, and the shares were offered to us. Probably not more than about 1%. Do you realize that this fact could seriously weaken our case in a court of law in terms of compensation or redress? Think about it before you spout off. Yes, we could have sought outside financial backing to buy 'on our behalf', but how practical would that have been? That would just be swapping one outside owner for another. So I understand the cautious approach of the Trust in committing our war chest of approx. £850k to a legal action which is not black and white, no pun intended.
The fact is, we have been stitched up and sold down the river by a bunch of guys who proclaimed themselves Jacks to the core, but have turned out to be a bunch of greedy barst*rds. There is no easy way to get back at them, and no quick way to win back control of our club, but the Trust is doing their best and proceeding with caution and intelligence. If you need to lash out, I suggest you attack those responsible, not those who are opposing them on our behalf. |
Well said.
Most anger should be directed at the sell outs, and potentially Cooze if he did know more than he let on.
Finding out that last snippet may be difficult, given that this may be the one thing the slimy cūnts are holding back on.
I'm interested to hear what they say next week at the board meeting. What exactly is the rationale for reinstating Leigh Dineen? What exactly does he bring to the table, apart from his huge ego and his swathes of adipose tissue? He's failed to grow the commercial arm in every measurable metric. [Post edited 6 Dec 2016 9:24]
| |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:18 - Dec 6 with 1119 views | Landore_Jack |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:00 - Dec 6 by Pegojack |
I went to the meeting last night.
The first thing I want to say is thank you to the Trust Board who ran the AGM last night for a very informative event. I understand a lot more now than I did before. I also want to thank those guys and their colleagues for giving up their free time unstintingly on behalf of Swansea City fans and club. It is greatly appreciated, and the meeting said so as one last night by a vote of thanks.
The next thing I want to say is that I'm disgusted by the tone of this thread and the ill-informed opinions trotted out by the usual keyboard warriors whose only ability is to carp from the sidelines and do nothing practical.
The main thing I learned last night, and I guess those demanding legal action aren't aware of, is that actual basis on which that would have to proceed.
What we are talking about is the Articles of Association originally signed up to in 2002 by the original shareholders, i.e. the sellouts, and the Supporters Trust. What that says is that no shareholder has the right to sell his/her shares to one party without offering them equally to the other shareholders. That's all it said, and it was originally intended to stop one of the existing shareholders buying out other people and getting a controlling stake. We are talking here about a certain hotel owner.
What Phil pointed out about the sale to the Americans, and what most of you seem to be ignoring, is that the Supporters Trust didn't have the funds to buy any meaningful amount of those shares even if the Articles of Association were abided by, and the shares were offered to us. Probably not more than about 1%. Do you realize that this fact could seriously weaken our case in a court of law in terms of compensation or redress? Think about it before you spout off. Yes, we could have sought outside financial backing to buy 'on our behalf', but how practical would that have been? That would just be swapping one outside owner for another. So I understand the cautious approach of the Trust in committing our war chest of approx. £850k to a legal action which is not black and white, no pun intended.
The fact is, we have been stitched up and sold down the river by a bunch of guys who proclaimed themselves Jacks to the core, but have turned out to be a bunch of greedy barst*rds. There is no easy way to get back at them, and no quick way to win back control of our club, but the Trust is doing their best and proceeding with caution and intelligence. If you need to lash out, I suggest you attack those responsible, not those who are opposing them on our behalf. |
Excellent post. Well said. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:21 - Dec 6 with 1102 views | swancity |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 07:43 - Dec 6 by waynekerr55 |
Because from what I gather he's a decent lawyer and a decent man. Also, it's my understanding that he didn't say no sale, it was just to the first sellers. He didn't even get the chance to look at the cowboys we have now.
Fúck my eyes there's so many fûcking experts on here who can't even spell law never mind understand it.
If people are so fûcking clever, give up your time and help the trust. If we have any magic circle lawyers here, tender your services. Anything, other than chatting spurious shìt with no substance. [Post edited 6 Dec 2016 7:45]
|
'From what you can gather'?
With respect, that implies you don't really know. You're basing you'r defensive remarks on hearsay and stuff that you would like to true. You don't know any facts so in that case it's best to form you're own opinion which is all that the rest of us are doing. Imo they should never have used Little. He may be a Swans fan. He may be a nice guy. He may be a good Solicitor. But the situation desperately demands independent review and guidance. And if that costs the going rate and on balance if there is a good chance of success then go for it. Just do it.
Stop defending something you have little idea about, excuse the pun. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
